LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – Michigan voters heading to the polls on Tuesday, November 3, will find two statewide proposals waiting for them alongside the usual parade of politicians asking for their votes.
One proposal asks whether Michigan should open up its Constitution for a potential overhaul. The other promises to get big-money interests out of politics.
MORE NEWS: Democrats Want John James’ Campaign Ads Pulled as $1.8 Million Contribution Sparks Legal Fight
Both sound straightforward enough. But as usual, the devil is in the details – and the fine print deserves more than a passing glance.
Proposal 1: Should Michigan Rewrite Its Rulebook?
Proposal 1 asks voters whether Michigan should hold a constitutional convention to consider rewriting the state’s governing document. The question appears automatically every 16 years under Michigan’s Constitution. Voters rejected constitutional conventions in 1978, 1994 and 2010.
As we reported in March, a “yes” vote would trigger the election of 148 delegates – one from each of Michigan’s 110 House districts and 38 Senate districts – to consider changes to the Constitution. And just about everything could be on the table, including taxation, education funding, legislative powers, term limits and individual rights.
Supporters see an opportunity to modernize a Constitution adopted in 1963. Opponents worry about opening a political Pandora’s box, potentially spending taxpayer dollars to produce changes voters never wanted. However, any proposed revisions would still require voter approval.
A “no” vote keeps the current Constitution in place, although individual amendments could still be proposed through existing procedures.
Support and Opposition for Proposal 1
Republican House Speaker Matt Hall and Senate Minority Leader Aric Nesbitt support holding a constitutional convention, while Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer and former Republican Attorney General Bill Schuette oppose it. Whitmer’s opposition is mostly because she says it would pose a threat to reproductive health freedom.
MORE NEWS: Behind the Podium: MEF Links El-Sayed Campaign Appearances to Mosques With Extreme Sermons
Opposition has also brought together organizations that have little common ground on political issues, including the ACLU of Michigan, Right to Life of Michigan, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan, the Democratic Party of Michigan, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and major labor unions.
While their reasons differ, opponents share concerns that reopening the Constitution could put existing protections that they support at risk and create political and economic uncertainty. Supporters, meanwhile, argue that a convention would give Michigan voters an opportunity to modernize the state’s governing document and address longstanding issues.
Proposal 2: Getting “Big Money” Out of Politics
Proposal 2, promoted by the Michiganders for Money Out of Politics campaign (MMOP or MOP Up Michigan), targets political contributions from regulated electric and gas utilities and government contractors with contracts exceeding $250,000 annually. The measure would prohibit certain political donations by those businesses and affiliated individuals and organizations, while expanding disclosure requirements for political communications, including paid online advertising.
Supporters argue that companies doing business with government shouldn’t be financing the campaigns of politicians who oversee them. They also maintain that greater transparency would help voters see who is financing political messaging.
Critics argue that the proposal goes well beyond preventing utility companies and government contractors from influencing politicians through campaign contributions. They point to provisions that would expand the definition of election-related communications to include certain messages mentioning or identifying candidates within 100 days of a general election, even if those messages never explicitly encourage voters to support or oppose anyone. Opponents also warn that the expanded reporting and donor-disclosure requirements could discourage individuals and organizations from engaging in political advocacy, raising concerns about free speech and First Amendment protections.
Could Proposal 2 Put Journalists Under the Microscope?
According to an analysis by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Proposal 2 could also have unintended consequences for Michigan journalists and news organizations. Because the measure would expand campaign-finance regulations to include certain public communications mentioning political candidates within 100 days of a general election, it could potentially sweep ordinary news articles, candidate interviews and political commentary into its reporting requirements.
Although existing Michigan law exempts traditional news coverage from certain campaign-finance restrictions, the proposal does not explicitly include that exemption in its new definition of electioneering communications. The Mackinac Center warns that news organizations could face additional financial disclosure requirements, raising questions about press freedom and whether journalists could be regulated simply for reporting on political candidates. The extent of those obligations remains uncertain.
Bipartisan Support?
Although Proposal 2 has attracted considerable support from Democratic politicians and progressive organizations, the idea of restricting political contributions from utilities and government contractors also resonates with Republican voters. An October poll released by Progress Michigan found support among 87% of Democrats, 77% of independents and 73% of Republicans. Republican state Rep. Ron Robinson has also publicly backed the ballot proposal. However, the proposal faces opposition from several prominent Michigan business organizations, which argue that it unfairly restricts political participation while leaving other major political donors largely untouched.
A “yes” vote on Proposal 2 would enact the campaign finance restrictions. A “no” vote would leave existing law unchanged.
Beyond the Ballot
Voters will have to decide whether the promised reforms are worth the potential consequences. And unlike campaign promises, ballot proposals don’t disappear once Election Day is over.
