Statewide ballot Proposals

[firstandten]

http://www.windsorstar.com/news/Mich...477/story.html

Interesting article in the Windsor Star by Jack Lessenberry. I struggle with these statewide ballot proposals more than I do with the Federal office elections. Out of the 6 proposals 5 will amend the state constitution I have some real concerns about amending the constitution everytime some group wants to affect policy. Even if it is policy that I like.

Any thoughts ?

[rb336]

I am voting yes on 2 because it guarantees the rights of working people. how the freep claims it has nothing to do with collective bargaining is beyond me. I am voting no on 5 because it would cripple the state's ability to respond to reality. No on 6 because it is simply moronic and to the benefit of ONE person

I haven't made up my mind on the rest.

[antongast]

I think it's too easy for a random well-funded interest group to amend the constitution to its liking, so I'd be receptive to some kind of reform of that process. I also think our constitution is a mess in general and is overdue for a wholesale rewrite.

That said, I don't see the point of voting against an amendment that I otherwise agree with purely out of principled objection to the idea of amending the constitution for the wrong reasons. If I do that, then I'm hurting causes I believe in without making it any harder for causes I find objectionable to get enshrined into the constitution. Prop 3, for instance, arguably shouldn't be a constitutional issue, but if you think clean energy is important, this is probably the last best chance to get something passed on that front for a good while. The legislature never accomplishes anything at all, and Snyder certainly isn't going to push for it.

If at some point in the future, I'm presented with the chance to vote for or against reforming the constitutional amendment process, I'll support it wholeheartedly, but until then I'm going to use the tools at my disposal to enact the policies I think should be enacted.

[rb336]

here's the thing - how would you reform the amendment process? have it start with the legislature? Force the backers to include who they are on the actual ballot language?

[firstandten]

I think it's too easy for a random well-funded interest group to amend the constitution to its liking, so I'd be receptive to some kind of reform of that process. I also think our constitution is a mess in general and is overdue for a wholesale rewrite.

That said, I don't see the point of voting against an amendment that I otherwise agree with purely out of principled objection to the idea of amending the constitution for the wrong reasons. If I do that, then I'm hurting causes I believe in without making it any harder for causes I find objectionable to get enshrined into the constitution. Prop 3, for instance, arguably shouldn't be a constitutional issue, but if you think clean energy is important, this is probably the last best chance to get something passed on that front for a good while. The legislature never accomplishes anything at all, and Snyder certainly isn't going to push for it.

If at some point in the future, I'm presented with the chance to vote for or against reforming the constitutional amendment process, I'll support it wholeheartedly, but until then I'm going to use the tools at my disposal to enact the policies I think should be enacted.

You make some very good points.

Being principled over a messed up state constitution is probably counter-productive. Besides the Repubs are probably thinking of a way they can amend the constitution the next election cycle to make Michigan a right to work state. They already are trying to slide that super majority tax vote proposal in this election cycle.

[poobert]

That said, I don't see the point of voting against an amendment that I otherwise agree with purely out of principled objection to the idea of amending the constitution for the wrong reasons. If I do that, then I'm hurting causes I believe in without making it any harder for causes I find objectionable to get enshrined into the constitution.

Very pragmatic, and it gave me pause. However I don't think it is that far-fetched that enough voters would comebine to vote no on proposals based on both not believing in the cause and other voters who don't believe they should be in the Constitution. If all proposals were voted down, it could send somewhat of a message to these special interests that amendments are going to be an uphill battle for them to manipulate that political process.

[firstandten]

I heard someone say.. when in doubt vote no. Its possible the people could be so confused as to how these proposals will play out going forward that they just might do that.