Constitutional Roulette
April 16, 2010The sheer challenge of collecting a half-million signatures and raising millions of dollars to put a proposal on Michigan’s November ballot has already done its weeding job.
Michigan voters will not entertain anti-mining or the anti-insurance job proposals this year. And, unless proponents of two casino-related proposals get their acts together, the only proposal guaranteed to make the ballot is the granddaddy of them all: the constitutional convention proposal.
Commonly known as the con-con proposal, voters will decide whether Michigan should toss its current constitution out the window and write a new one. As a new constitutional convention could effectively negate any other proposal passed this year, is it any wonder it may be the only proposal on the ballot?
Many people whom I respect believe that our state’s 47 year-old constitution is out of date and it’s time for a new one.
Craig Ruff in his Dome column “Call for a Constitutional Convention” says he has great faith in the system, and that voters — as they have historically via the likes of George Romney and Richard Austin — will elect visionary and well-committed public servants to develop a document that will guide Michigan through the 21st Century.
Craig, and others supporting a con-con, have a lot more faith than I do.
Electing 148 delegates to a constitutional convention is the same system we use to elect 148 legislators who today can’t balance the state budget, pass meaningful if not downright survival-necessary reforms, or agree on what our state insect will be.
Now, we are to trust that system to elect 148 delegates to work in harmony to rewrite the entire constitution in a matter of months? Oy vey and God help us.
Passing the con-con in these political times is like loading a six-shooter revolver with five bullets and playing Russian roulette with Michigan’s future.
Just think about the election process.
A partisan primary and election would be held in the spring of 2011 to elect delegates from each House and Senate district. With everything that is at stake, special interests would field candidates in almost every seat. The primaries would be huge, unless there is a prohibitive favorite in a race. We could see candidates in almost every district and in both parties’ primaries recruited by the NRA, MEA, Right to Life, environmental groups, various labor unions, various business organizations, schools, colleges, gay rights groups, tea partiers, religious groups, etc., etc., etc.
With 10 or more candidates in primary races it wouldn’t take too many votes to win a special election. Organizations with the most money and built-in structures would have the best chance to stuff the convention ballot box. Whack nuts with bucks like Soros and Stryker could have a field day.
We could end up with a constitutional convention dominated by special interests where, as an example, the NRA caucus joins with the building trades caucus to barter votes with the gay rights and pro-life caucuses, making sure each of their interests gets covered.
Who would look after taxpayers’ interests?
As much as I value the role special interests groups and organizations play in our democracy, I’m quite confident I don’t want them rewriting our state’s constitution.
Take a look at some of the laws that could be jeopardized:
- Laws that limit local taxation
- Proposal A protecting our property taxes from rising too fast
- The right to elect our attorney general or secretary of state
- Abortion rights or prohibitions to public funding of abortions
- Laws prohibiting government deficit spending
- Laws protecting school funding sources
- Laws protecting redistricting.
Now, look at some of the laws proponents already are pushing:
- A graduated income tax allowing local governments to charge a local sales tax
- Designating attorneys to appoint our judges
- Levying a sales tax on everything
- Consolidating governments so they all operate as efficiently as Wayne County.
This is all reminiscent of trading in the dreaded SBT and ending up with the much more dreaded MBT.
While this is all going on, the new administration and legislature elected this November would be at a standstill. After all, why tackle major reforms if they could just be thrown out at the convention?
Michigan’s constitution is not broken.
It provides fundamental protections for the taxpayers, protections that have saved them billions of dollars over the years. And there is nothing to prohibit the legislature from passing needed reforms.
While surveys show the $45 million cost of a con-con may be enough to beat it at the polls, the more voters carefully consider this proposal they will realize the only vote to protect their own interests is a resounding NO on the 2010 con-con.
Tom Shields is founder and president of Marketing Resource Group (MRG), a Lansing-based political marketing and public relations firm.
3 responses so far ↓
1 Henry S. Woloson // Apr 21, 2010 at 6:27 am
Mr. Shields states that “Michigan’s constutition is not broken.” If true, then why does Michigan consistently have the highest unemployment in the Nation, substantial declines in per capita income, some of the worst schools in the U.S., etc.? He is trying to defend the status quo that got us to this point?
Mr. Shields writes: “And there is NOTHING to prohibit the legislature from passing needed reforms.” Then where are they? Where are the reforms in education funding? Taxation? Improvement in the business climate? Restructuring government including adopting a part-time legislature like 42 other states? What is the legislature waiting for if there is NOTHING stopping them from acting?
Mr. Shields is concerned that if a convention is approved by voters, “special interests would field candidates in almost every seat.” Then why is every special interest OPPOSED to Proposal One, including his cited MEA and such business groups like the Michigan Chamber? If the special interest groups want to use the convention to advance their multiple agendas, why are they all against it? Probably because they know they cannot control the 148 elected delegates, a prospect they find appalling.
The executive offices of the Secretary of State estimated the cost of a constitutional convention to be $8 to 10 million, not the $45 million being circulated by opponents. Using an inflation factor, the Mackinac Center estimated the cost to be $14.5 million based on the cost of the 1961-1962 convention which was partially paid for by foundations. Plus, if a part-time legislature were to be adopted as a result of the convention, there would be a potential ANNUAL cost savings of $50 million based on nearby, more populated Ohio. Enough to cover even the inflated one-time cost of a convention.
Since all amendments passed by a constitutional convention must be approved by a majority of voters, there are more than adequate checks and balances in place to prevent, according to Mr. Shields, the “Whack nuts with bucks” from having “a field day” and gaining passage of provisions not in the best interests of taxpayers. Not knowing the outcomes of elections in advance is a wonderful feature of democracies.
Please visit: http://www.EnergizeMichigan.com
Michigan needs a forum to discuss and debate potential changes to help our recovery. The status quo obviously is not providing that forum. A state constitutional convention offers a proven, viable alternative. Until a better option is presented, we support a Yes For Michigan vote on Proposal One in November, 2010.
2 Mike Martin // Apr 21, 2010 at 9:59 am
I only read the first paragraph of Mr. Woloson’s reply. That was enough.
Why does Michigan have the highest employment in the nation? A combination of a nasty recession and the relatinship between managment and union. As much as all of us in Michigan have benefited from the auto unions, their time is past, and we probably won’t see significant gains in auto jobs until we accept that.
3 Tom // Apr 21, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Lansing is broken– and needs a fix! People have proven they are capable of getting the job done.
Remember, Wayne County and Macomb Counties elected people to write what is in essence a local or county charter/onstitution.
While no document is perfect, most would agree that the work produced by these two elected bodies to write a localcharter/ constitution was much better than what they started with.
Does it not stand to reason, if the folks in Wayne and Macomb Counties can do it– and do it right, that it may just be possible that it can be done, like it has been done in the past– at the statewide level?
Clearly, there were special interests at play in Wayne County in the early 80′s when the Wayne County Charter was written and in Macomb County when they just recently wrote a Charter/Constitution.
Finally, a point that was omitted, the people get the final say. Any new Michigan Consitution must be voted on and approved my the voters of Michigan.
After the elected Con-Con delegates write a new constitution– it has to be presented to the voters for a vote. If a lousy job is done and the ” taxpayers’ interests,” are ignored than the voters can and most certainly will reject new Consitution.
The Governor and Leg can take the need for a Con-Con off the table by enacting sensible reforms and passing a budget that allows us to invest in our collective future. The likelihood they are capable of getting the job done– zip!
Peter Luke reported a recent survey asked Lansing lobbyists, staffers and other insiders whether Gov. Jennifer Granholm and the Legislature would agree on a tax deal this year.
Would they expand the sales tax to services and reduce the rate, protect K-12 education from new cuts and slash business taxes?
In short, asked the Capitol Caucus Web site, could they pass the largest tax overhaul since 1994’s Proposal A?
Sample responses:
• “Never.”
• “Snowball. Hell.”
• “Zip. Zero. Zilch.”
• “The Lions have a better chance at winning the Super Bowl.”
• “When monkeys fly ….”
To quote one more reply to the Capitol Caucus:
“Don’t hold your breath.”
The vested interest from the left and the right will come out with big money to oppose a Con-Con. Why– because they fear that their special interest will not get passed and the other sides will.
Michigan voters are fed up. They are “mad as hell and not willing to take it any more!”
If I were a protector of the status quo– I too would fear a Con-Con.
Without serious reform– the voters are likely to come out with their pitch-forks to vote for a Con-Con this Nov.
Time will tell if it produces change and progress.
Leave a Comment:
Be sure to put in the security words and hit SUBMIT