There are five ballot proposals before the voters on November 7 that address conservation funding, affirmative action, dove hunting, eminent domain, and school funding. In Michigan, there are four ways that a proposal can be put on the ballot—a legislative referendum in which a bill that does not appropriate money can have a provision that requires a majority vote by the people before the law goes into effect, a voter referendum in which people get citizens to sign petitions to put the issue before the voters with the law in question suspended until after a vote is taken (ex: Proposal 3), a statutory initiative in which the people who want a new law gather signatures on petitions asking the Legislature to act on a piece of proposed legislation and then if it is not acted on it goes on the ballot for a popular vote (Proposal 5), and a constitutional amendment proposed by a two-thirds vote in the legislature or by petitions signed by at least ten percent of the number of people that voted in the last governor’s race. A rundown of the proposals is below:
Proposal 1: A Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Require that Money Held in Conservation and Recreation Funds can only be used for their Intended Purposes
Ballot Language:
The proposed constitutional amendment would:
Create a Conservation and Recreation Legacy Fund within the Constitution and establish existing conservation and recreation accounts as components of the fund.
Use current funding sources such as state park entrance and camping fees; snowmobile, ORV and boating registration fees; hunting and fishing license fees; taxes and other revenues to fund accounts.
Establish the current Game and Fish Protection Fund and the Nongame Fish and Wildlife Fund within the Constitution.
Provide that money held in Funds can only be used for specific purposes related to conservation and recreation and cannot be used for any purpose other than those intended.
Should this proposal be adopted?
Summary, Support, and Opposition
The proposal would amend the State Constitution to protect Department of Natural Resource funds from being diverted into purposes for those other than intended. According to the Citizens Research Council of Michigan, the language of the proposed amendment is almost identical to the existing statute in Public Act 451 of 1994, the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. The CRC further found that there has only been one diversion from these funds, with a $7.8 million diversion from the Waterways Fund in 2002 to help balance the state’s general fund. Money in some of these accounts has lessened in recent years, but the CRC attributes it to declined participation in outdoor activities and less general fund spending. Proposal 1 is supported by the Michigan United Conservation Clubs and there is no organized opposition.
Proposal 2: A proposal to amend the state constitution to ban affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity, or national origin for public employment, education, or contracting purposes.
Ballot Language:
The proposed constitutional amendment would:
Ban public institutions from using affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes. Public institutions affected by the proposal include state government, local governments, public colleges and universities, community colleges and school districts.
Prohibit public institutions from discriminating against groups or individuals due to their gender, ethnicity, race, color or national origin. (A separate provision of the state constitution already prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin.)
Should this proposal be adopted?
Summary, Support, and Opposition
Proposal 2 has been the most contentious ballot proposal on the ballot this election. It has been funded almost entirely by Ward Connerly, a California businessman who has led campaigns around the country to eliminate affirmative action, most notably in California. Connerly’s work has been funded by a host of far right funders including the Bradley, Scaife, and Olin foundations. There has been organized opposition to the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) since the petition process began with activists attacking the idea of naming an anti-affirmative action measure a “civil rights” initiative and widespread allegations of fraud. The Michigan Civil Rights Commission documented widespread and systematic fraud in the petition gathering process while numerous other entities from the American Civil Liberties Union to the Urban League have said that the effect of eliminating affirmative action will be devastating for people of color in Michigan as the state is already one of the most segregated in the United States. Electoral opposition to the proposal has been organized by One United Michigan while Proposal 2 has been opposed publicly by almost every politician or organized group with the exception being white supremacist groups such as the Council of Conservative Citizens and the Ku Klux Klan.
Proposal 3: A referendum on Public Act 160 of 2004—an act to allow the establishment of a hunting season for mourning doves.
Ballot Language:
Authorize the Natural Resources Commission to establish a hunting season for mourning doves.
Require a mourning dove hunter to have a small game license and a $2.00 mourning dove stamp.
Stipulate that revenue from the stamp must be split evenly between the Game and Fish Protection Fund and the Fish and Wildlife Trust Fund.
Require the Department of Natural Resources to address responsible mourning dove hunting; management practices for the propagation of mourning doves; and participation in mourning dove hunting by youth, the elderly and the disabled in the Department’s annual hunting guide.
Should this law be approved?
Summary, Support, and Opposition
Public Act 160 of 2004 was an amendment to Public Act 451 of 1994 that reclassified the Mourning Dove as a game bird and permitted Mourning Dove hunting, making Michigan the 41st state to permit Mourning Dove hunting. Opponents of the measure, led by the Committee to Keep Doves Protected, organized a campaign to put the law before voters arguing that Mourning Doves have been protected since 1905, that they are not overpopulated, that they are shot for target practice and not food, and that they are not harmful to humans, farms, or property. Supporters of dove hunting have been led by Citizens for Wildlife Conservation who has received funding from out-of-state pro-hunting organizations including the National Rifle Association, the Ballot Issues Coalition (an NRA offshoot in Virginia), the National Wild Turkey Federation, Safari Club International, and the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance.
Proposal 4: A proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit government from taking private property by eminent domain for certain private purposes.
Ballot Language:
Prohibit government from taking private property for transfer to another private individual or business for purposes of economic development or increasing tax revenue.
Provide that if an individual's principal residence is taken by government for public use, the individual must be paid at least 125% of property's fair market value.
Require government that takes a private property to demonstrate that the taking is for a public use; if taken to eliminate blight, require a higher standard of proof to demonstrate that the taking of that property is for a public use.
Preserve existing rights of property owners.
Should this proposal be adopted?
Summary, Support, and Opposition
Proposal 4 is supported by the Protected Our Property Rights Coalition, a project of the Michigan Association of Realtors which is one of the top 10 political action committees (PACs) in Michigan politics. Supporters of the proposal argue that the proposal restores homeowners rights by preventing the government from taking someone’s home or property under eminent domain and giving it to a third party for economic development. Opponents believe that the proposal—represented by the Michigan Municipal League—argue that economic development is the proper role of the government and that the government should have the power to use eminent domain to purchase property and transfer it to a private entity.
Proposal 5: A legislative initiative to establish mandatory school funding levels.
Ballot Language:
The proposed law would:
Increase current funding by approximately $565 million and require State to provide annual funding increases equal to the rate of inflation for public schools, intermediate school districts, community colleges, and higher education (includes state universities and financial aid/grant programs).
Require State to fund any deficiencies from General Fund.
Base funding for school districts with a declining enrollment on three-year student enrollment average.
Reduce and cap retirement fund contribution paid by public schools, community colleges and state universities; shift remaining portion to state.
Reduce funding gap between school districts receiving basic per-pupil foundation allowance and those receiving maximum foundation allowance.
Should this proposed law be approved?
Summary, Support, and Opposition
Proposal 5 is supported by the K-16 Coalition for Michigan’s Future and is described as an education ballot initiative that requires the State of Michigan to provide reasonable annual inflationary funding increases to local public K-12 schools, community colleges, and universities. The proposal is designed to address funding difficulties facing public schools through the aforementioned increase, capping Retirement Fund contributions from schools, and reducing the funding gap between school districts receiving basic per-pupil foundation allowances and those receiving the maximum foundation allowance. The proposal is opposed by the Coalition to Stop the K-16 Spending mandate who argues that the cost demands are staggering and that funding this proposal will mean cuts in other areas of the budget. Similarly, many politicians from the Democratic and Republican parties have opposed this proposal at recent candidate forums citing the fact that it will tie the hands of the legislature.
