Only donate if we've informed you about important Michigan issues
See what new members are saying about why they donated to Bridge Michigan:
- “In order for this information to be accurate and unbiased it must be underwritten by its readers, not by special interests.” - Larry S.
- “Not many other media sources report on the topics Bridge does.” - Susan B.
- “Your journalism is outstanding and rare these days.” - Mark S.
If you want to ensure the future of nonpartisan, nonprofit Michigan journalism, please become a member today. You, too, will be asked why you donated and maybe we'll feature your quote next time!
Opinion | Why political elites fear a Michigan constitutional convention
Share this:
The constitutional convention question is on Michigan’s ballot this fall not because Michigan’s framers were idiots or hated democracy — as some influential convention opponents would have you believe — but because they considered the convention process the gold standard for constitutional change.
For example, they restricted Legislature-proposed and citizen-initiated constitutional change to relatively simple “amendments,” whereas they allowed a convention to propose both “amendments” and wholesale “revisions.”
They trusted convention-proposed constitutional change more than Legislature-proposed constitutional change because the Legislature has an inherent conflict of interest in designing both its own powers and those of competing branches of government. In contrast, a convention is elected independently of the Legislature.
This conflict of interest is why Massachusetts invented the convention process in the 1770s, and why Congress forced Michigan to use it to draft its own constitution in 1835. Even today, Congress mandates that a convention draft a new state constitution for a US territory.
Like a convention, the citizens’ initiative addresses the Legislature’s conflict-of-interest problem. But the framers refused to give the initiative the same degree of power as the convention. Only wealthy or highly organized interests can afford the tens of millions of dollars or tens of thousands of hours of labor to place an initiative on the ballot. At a taxpayer-funded convention, an elected delegate can propose even minor changes simply by raising her hand — a much more democratic process.
The framers knew conventions cost government more, but they also knew that high-quality democratic processes, including constitutional processes, could be worth the extra expense. If cost minimization were the benchmark of good democracy, we would do away with local democracy and the legislative and judicial branches entirely, as a single elected governor would cost less. Even more savings could be attained by making Michigan’s governor elected for life.
The framers also knew that if they allowed the Legislature and its special interest allies to limit a convention’s agenda, the process would be superfluous. Thus, a convention’s unlimited agenda is its prime feature, not a bug.
The ultimate check on a convention is that it can only propose, not approve, reforms. Every proposal must be ratified by the public after at least 90 days of review. In contrast, the Legislature can introduce and pass laws at the last minute without a public ratification vote — something it often does when favoring special interests. The framers trusted the people, granting them the right to ratify all constitutional changes.
To argue that the people cannot be trusted to approve changes because they might be unduly influenced by special interests or are stupid is to attack the principle of constitutional democracy itself.
The natural enemies of the convention process include state legislatures seeking to protect their gatekeeping power; peak special-interest groups (including business and labor) that excel at influencing legislators; political parties to the extent the above interests wield veto power; and any organizations dependent on the above interests for their effectiveness. In short, if you’re a political elite, it’s likely in your self-interest to oppose a convention.
Reflecting this elite opposition, opponents of Alaska’s 2022 convention referendum outspent supporters almost 100-to-1. If opponents sense they might lose in Michigan, they will do likewise. They will also promote unpopular organizations and individuals as the face of convention supporters. The opposition’s most popular bogeyman right now is also an anonymous one: “wealthy special interests.” This is a classic case of reverse-accusation politics: accusing your opponent of your own flaws.
Fearmongering tactics on convention referendums vary over time and place. Michigan is currently remarkable for the absurd claim that a convention can only revise, not amend, the Constitution, magnifying fear of the process. In contrast, New Hampshire has the second-oldest constitution in the world, but has held 16 constitutional conventions, using them effectively to make targeted amendments.
The people of Michigan are currently deeply distrustful of their Legislature and the special interests that hold sway over it. The framers invented the convention process, along with the checks and balances system, because an elected legislature is ill-suited to fix some democratic problems. Like any democratic process, the convention process is imperfect and could benefit from reform — but it exists for a good reason.
Related
Bridge welcomes guest columns from a diverse range of people on issues relating to Michigan and its future. The views and assertions of these writers do not necessarily reflect those of Bridge or The Center for Michigan. Bridge does not endorse any individual guest commentary submission. If you are interested in submitting a guest commentary, email your submission or idea to guestcommentary@bridgemi.com. Click here for details and submission guidelines.