- Michiganders will get the chance to vote on two statewide ballot proposals during the Nov. 3 midterm elections
- Proposal 1 asks voters whether they want to re-write the state Constitution. The question is required to be asked every 16 years
- Proposal 2 seeks to get ‘money out of politics’ by limiting who can donate to politicians — but faces potential legal challenges
LANSING — Michiganders will decide in the Nov. 3 general election whether to rewrite the Michigan Constitution and limit political spending by utilities and state contractors.
Proposal 1, which asks voters to convene a constitution convention, automatically appears on the ballot every 16 years and has been defeated in prior elections.
While a politically diverse coalition is aggressively campaigning against the proposal and there is no organized opposition, early polling suggested the measure could appeal to voters frustrated by the status quo in Lansing.
Related:
- Proposal 1: Rewrite Michigan’s Constitution? Here’s how it would work
- Fact check: Would ‘money out of politics’ proposal live up to its name?
- Fact check: Would ‘money out of politics’ proposal stifle free speech?
Protect MI Constitution from Special Interests, the group encouraging a “no” vote, raised nearly $3.2 million and spent nearly $2.7 million on the campaign between July 21 and Oct. 18, according to its latest disclosure.
“We’re going to be pushing hard through Election Day to make sure that folks get the word that you need to vote no on Proposal 1,” said Mark Fisk, one of two political strategists leading the Protect MI Constitution group.
Proposal 2, asks voters whether to ban political spending in state elections by Michigan’s regulated utilities and large government contractors.
Updated campaign finance filings for Michiganders for Money out of Politics, the group which spearheaded the effort to get Proposal 2 on the ballot, were not available as of time of publication due to a filing error.
But the group is heading toward Election Day with an endorsement from former President Barack Obama, who told Michiganders at a weekend rally to vote yes on the measure “so we can curb pay-to-play politics.”
But what would these proposals actually do if approved? Let’s get into it.
Proposal 1: Calling a Constitutional Convention
Michigan voters last rewrote the state constitution more than 60 years ago, and the question of whether to hold a constitutional convention has been shot down repeatedly in the decades since.
Opponents say the proposed constitutional rewrite could be influenced by special interests. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has argued delegates could remove popular provisions, including a voter-approved amendment guaranteeing abortion access.
Supporters, though, say the convention is a way to circumvent partisan gridlock in Lansing and force a conversation on issues with expanding bipartisan interest, like data centers and property tax rates.
If voters reject Proposal 1, then that’s it for another 16 years.
But if voters approve the measure, it would trigger “a whole lot of things happening in a very short amount of time,” said Eric Lupher, president of the Citizens Research Council of Michigan, which has published a series of in-depth reports on the prospect of a constitutional convention.
First would come Democratic and Republican primaries to nominate delegates to the constitutional convention, followed by a general election by mid-2027. Voters would ultimately select 148 delegates — one for each state House and state Senate district. There is no requirement for partisan balance at the convention.
Following their election, delegates would convene in Lansing by Oct. 5, 2027, or “an earlier date if provided by law,” according to the current Michigan Constitution.
Delegates would then choose convention officers, determine the rules of the convention and hire staff. The Legislature would decide how much they’re paid.
There’s no limit to how long the convention could last, how often delegates would meet or what they could add or remove from the current constitution.
Michigan voters would have the final say, however.
“Not less than 90 days after final adjournment of the convention,” another statewide ballot proposal would ask voters if they want to adopt the new Constitution that the delegates proposed.
Proposal 2: An effort to get ‘money out of politics’
Proposal 2 would prohibit direct or indirect contributions to Michigan politicians by DTE Energy, Consumers Energy and companies with more than $250,000 in state government contracts, along with immediate family members and other people with close connections to the companies.
Proponents contend the proposal would discourage what they call “pay-to-play politics,” while opponents argue it’s a means of stifling free speech.
Should voters approve the measure, opponents are likely to sue to try to stop implementation.
State law already prohibits corporations from directly contributing to Michigan candidates. But under the proposal, that ban would extend to officials at impacted companies, along with other people who have “substantial” ownership interests or serve on a board of directors.
They’d be barred from donating to any of the following:
- The governor, attorney general, state senator, representative or candidate for such office
- A state or local party committee
- A committee, other than an independent expenditure committee or ballot question committee, that makes contributions to a candidate
- A member of the Michigan Public Service Commission
Company officials and immediate family members could also not donate to entities that are affiliated with elected officials or candidates and pay for their travel, meals, conference fees or other expenses.
The proposal would not directly prohibit dark money spending through 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations, which do not have to disclose their donors, making the money difficult to trace.
But the measure seeks to end the “dark” nature of some of that spending by shining a light on donors. It would require groups to disclose their donors if they run so-called issue advertisements within 100 days of a general election or 30 days before a primary.
That means any outside group that references a candidate or ballot issue in an ad — even if they don’t explicitly say “vote for” or “vote against” — would have to report donors and expenses to the state.
The proposal would not prohibit contributions to independent expenditure super PACs allowed under the 2010 Citizens United US Supreme Court decision, and it includes language anticipating potential legal challenges: “If any portion is found void, invalid or unenforceable, the remaining portions remain in effect.”
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under our Republication Guidelines. Questions? Email republishing@bridgemi.com
You must be logged in to post a comment.