Proposed Michigan Constitutional Convention: Unneeded Distraction, Cost,
|
||||||||||||
| Printer Friendly Story View |
The United States has only had one Constitution in its history.
The process of amendment has kept the Constitution a "living" document, along with Supreme Court decisions interpreting the intent of the founders.
On November 2, 2010, as Michigan voters go to the polls to elect a new Governor, Secretary of State and Attorney General, as well as the entire State Legislature, the electorate will also be asked to decide whether to call a new constitutional convention for the State of Michigan.
Michigan should not need a Con-Con. If needed changes arise we can make and approve amendments.
Also, there does not appear to be an overwhelming need to spend an estimated $45 million the state doesn't have for a Constitutional Convention.
The Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the Michigan Association of Retired School Personnel and dozens of major organizations, companies, unions, etc., recommend a "No" vote on the question of whether the state should convene a new constitutional convention (Con-Con) that will appear on the November 2, 2010 election ballot.
Dianne Byrum, former state legislator from East Lansing, says: voters should reject Proposal 1, which calls for a constitutional convention, because it would slam the brakes on Michigan's economic recovery at a time when we can least afford it.
"Comerica Bank's Michigan Economic Activity Index climbed in July to its highest level in more than two years. Construction permits are up. Clean energy and energy efficiency are creating Michigan jobs in a wide range of areas, including advanced automotive and battery technology, wind and solar, biomass, manufacturing and construction.
"There's a lot of work to be done, and we're starting to make progress. The passage of Proposal 1 would bring any progress to a grinding halt."
Bill Ballenger, editor of Inside Michigan Politics, weighed in: "In 1978 and 1994 voters rejected the idea by about a 3 to one margin. It could be a lot closer this time, but I'm not sure voters will say yes."
Ballenger says, "I think mainly because people will decide the devil we know is better than the devil we don't."
Con-Con has its supporters, mainly John Logie, former mayor of Grand Rapids, and Tom Watkins, former state school superintendent. They co-wrote a column in the Lansing State Journal recently that pointed to the anomaly of political nominations of supreme court justices and their election as supposed non-partisans.
Logie/Watkins also question partisan elections of members of university boards and a full-time two-house Legislature.
Since the present constitution prohibits a graduated income tax, the idea should be considered, along with taxing services, the Con-Con advocates urge.
We agree those are ideas that deserve consideration; but can't they be changed without the massive process of electing 148 delegates and putting the state's business on hold for years without any guarantee that the changes would be approved?
The Michigan Chamber strongly supported the adoption of a new constitution for the state in 1963 and believes that the constitution of 1963 has served Michigan citizens well.
The costs to Michigan society, both in the actual costs of the convention and the special election of Con-Con delegates, are not merited, the Chamber and many organizations agree.
A process is provided for amending the present constitution. Amendments, where deemed appropriate by the electors, can best be achieved on an issue-by-issue basis rather than through a complete revision.
The Michigan Chamber is leading a coalition of organizations opposed to a call for a new constitutional convention in 2010 as it did in 1978 and 1994.
The ballot proposal will be on the statewide ballot not by the action of the current Legislature or as a result of any petition drive; rather the state's present constitution requires that this question be placed before state voters every 16 years.
Since this proposal automatically goes on the ballot, the constitutional convention question (Con-Con) will be Proposal 10-1 on the November 2, 2010 ballot.
If voters defeat this proposal in 2010, the question will automatically reappear in 2026 and, if defeated, again in 2042 and every 16 years thereafter -- 2058, 2079 and 2090.
The people of Michigan have adopted over the years four state constitutions in 1835, 1850, 1908 and most recently in 1963. In contrast, the United States has had only one constitution over the past two centuries plus.
This November will result in significant leadership change in Lansing. Beginning in January, there will be a new governor. Three quarters of the state senators will be newly elected, as will roughly half of the state representatives.
"Michigan cannot afford to have these new leaders impeded next year as they face the monumental task of tackling state spending, our tax structure, and a variety of other critical issues that must be confronted," states the Chamber.
A Constitutional Convention would effectively put state government on hold until it completes its work. The new governor and state lawmakers would be distracted by constitutional issues for two years or more. Instead of confronting Michigan's problems, we'll all have to stand by and watch as the troubles continue, and likely get worse.
Moreover, taxpayers will have to pay a huge bill. Conservative estimates place the price tag of holding a constitutional convention at $45 million. We'll have no reforms for at least two years, pay $45 million, and there will be no guarantee that when the process is over that voters will even adopt a new constitution resulting from the convention. In other words, it could all be for nothing.
Michigan should vote NO on Proposal 1.
###
| Printer Friendly Story View |
"The BUZZ" - Read Feedback From Readers! |
|
donnajkc Says:
On October 01, 2010
at 10:56 PM
Mr Rogers,
Could the new constitution abolish the bicameral system in place in Michigan now for a unicameral state government? Or could that be done with an amendment? Either way, the result would be a definite decrease in the cost of government. It works in Nebraska. Why not think about it for Michigan? Donna |
|
|
Dave Rogers |
|
|
|
Printer-Friendly Story View
0200 Nd: 04-22-2024 d 4 cpr 0
12/31/2020 P3v3-0200-Ad.cfm
SPONSORED LINKS
12/31/2020 drop ads P3v3-0200-Ad.cfm