State Proposal 10-1

[East Detroit]

A proposal to convene a constitutional convention for the purpose of drafting a general revision of the State Constitution.

Shall a convention of elected delegates be convened in 2011 to draft a general revision of the State Constitution for presentation to the state's voters for their approval or rejection?

[East Detroit]

Here I am thinking no, because:

1) We don't have the money

2) We don't have any big issues that need resolution in this manner

3) Constitutions should not change often, especially not cyclic to the political tides.

[Jimaz]

Thanks for posting these polls, East Detroit. I tried to do it myself but the one-line question limit on polls threw me and I never got around to doing it properly.

I'm curious what people have to say on these proposals. I'm ambivalent now so I won't vote yet.

[Don K]

I'm with East Detroit. I can think of some things I'd like to change in the constitution, but overall it seems to be working okay, and I don't see the reason to rip it up and start from scratch.

If you want to amend the constitution, just circulate petitions for the changes you want, and let the changes be decided on.

[gazhekwe]

There were opinions in the Free Press this morning, two for and two against. One of the fors was the mayor of Warren whose sole reason was to eliminate the age barrier for judges. That would be easily amended, no need to go for a rewrite of the whole constitution.

The other for person was Tom George, rep and former candidate for governor. He basically ripped the whole constitution on fiscal grounds because it was written when we were a rich state. I don't see how a rewrite of our constitution can heal our funding woes. Budgeting requirements are already in there and are being worked around, so why a rewrite would help, I can't see. George also said the cost would be limited by a law that he had proposed. However, it would still cost a substantial amount that we would not have to fund if we vote No.

The two against both felt the amendment route was the more fiscally responsible way to go,considering our current financial state. We can't routinely pay for basic services anymore, so spending on a con-con for a result that has a 50-50 chance of being rejected is needlessly extravagant.

[jackie5275]

Here I am thinking no, because:

3) Constitutions should not change often, especially not cyclic to the political tides.

I agree. Not just political tides, but citizen/voter frenzy as well. That's how we got stuck with term limits, which don't stop career politicians. It just makes them play musical chairs.

[Fnemecek]

This argument that we should just amend the Constitution to fix the problems with is the logical equivalent of saying, "No one should ever go to a dealership to buy a new car - just go to the auto parts store and buy one bit by bit."

There are literally dozens and dozens of things wrong with the current Constitution.

Why does Michigan need a bicameral legislature? It exists at the federal level as a compromise between two different ways to electing legislators. In Michigan, however, it simply repeats the same process; creating an unnecessary redundancy and making our government more expensive.

Why does the House of Representatives have an even number of members? In the 90s, there was an even split in the number of Dems and Republicans. No one was ever really in charge and nothing got done during those two years.

Why do we have a State Officers Compensation Commission that is set up to give elected officials raises automatically? Does anyone else around here get automatic raises at their job?

Why do we still have term limits in Michigan? They've been a complete failure at doing everything they were intended to do. More importantly, they have simply made the bureaucracy in Lansing more entrenched than ever.

The list just goes on.

For everyone who is opposed to the Con Con, why am I being asked to buy a new car piece by piece instead of being able to walk into a dealership?

Michigan doesn't have the money to waste on not having one.

[EastSider]

There are too many things that need fixing in the state than can be accomplished through constitutional amendments.

The democrats learned two years ago with their "Reform Now" campaign that amendments have to be targeted and limited in what they can change. The proposal also has to be explainable in 100 words or less, including the citations.

I would add to Frank's list the following:

forcing consolidation of school districts and the county/township/charter township/village/city layers of municipal governance.

Michigan has over 1,800 units of local government. If you include groups like TIFs, DDAs and the DEGC that directly handle tax dollars, you get an unhealthy amount of administrative waste. There's a crap load of money that can be squeezed from the system by peeling back these layers.

None of that is possible, though, through an amendment.

[MCP-001]

There are literally dozens and dozens of things wrong with the current Constitution.

Why does Michigan need a bicameral legislature? It exists at the federal level as a compromise between two different ways to electing legislators. In Michigan, however, it simply repeats the same process; creating an unnecessary redundancy and making our government more expensive.

A bicameral legislature is necessary step to make sure that unpopular, ill-conceived legislation does not pass in the legislature easily.

The idea was to create a balance between the populated and rural areas of Michigan, similar to how the US Senate was originally set up balance out rural and populated states, until the SCOTUS Reynolds v. Sims decision. The idea was so that populated area, like Detroit, couldn't impose unpopular laws on rural areas of Michigan like the U.P..

Why does the House of Representatives have an even number of members? In the 90s, there was an even split in the number of Dems and Republicans. No one was ever really in charge and nothing got done during those two years.

Good question. I have yet to hear a good answer on that one. But, I'm, leaning towards the same idea as what I've mentioned above.

Why do we have a State Officers Compensation Commission that is set up to give elected officials raises automatically? Does anyone else around here get automatic raises at their job?

This was created after the legislature got themselves into hot water several years back by perpetually giving themselves raises. It was created as an "escape hatch", so to speak, to get the raises without actually having to vote on them. The legislature also wrote it in that they must vote to NOT accept a pay raise.

Why do we still have term limits in Michigan? They've been a complete failure at doing everything they were intended to do. More importantly, they have simply made the bureaucracy in Lansing more entrenched than ever.

Because Michigan Voters WANTED term limits back in '92. It passed by about 60-40, and prevented us from having perpetual politicians like Levin, Dingell and Conyers who rack up trillions in debt, support bad legislation and represent their political party more than they do their home district.

The list just goes on.

For everyone who is opposed to the Con Con, why am I being asked to buy a new car piece by piece instead of being able to walk into a dealership?

Michigan doesn't have the money to waste on not having one.

Let me give you your analogy another way.

The people who write laws and democrats and republicans.

The people who will get spots writing a new constitution [[if approved), will be democrats and republicans. They don't give a rat's tail what you want, they will do the bidding of their party masters. Once a new constitution is written, it will become a take-it-or-leave-it proposition.

So, if you are looking at a new car, do you really want one that was built by Toyota?

[Bearinabox]

A bicameral legislature is necessary step to make sure that unpopular, ill-conceived legislation does not pass in the legislature easily.

The idea was to create a balance between the populated and rural areas of Michigan, similar to how the US Senate was originally set up balance out rural and populated states, until the SCOTUS Reynolds v. Sims decision. The idea was so that populated area, like Detroit, couldn't impose unpopular laws on rural areas of Michigan like the U.P..

So instead what we get is a legislature that never accomplishes anything of substance, and is disproportionately biased against the metro area that's home to half the state's population and tax base.

[kraig]

Best thing to do. Take a look at the state constitution. If you think there are enough changes needed to constitute a revision, vote yes. If not, vote no.

[casscorridor]

We need to change the constitution. Three main things come to mind...

1) Changing transportation funding away from 99% dedicated to roads to something more fair. Otherwise, public transit will never be adequately funded. Also, create a regional mass transit authority for Metro Detroit.
2) Changing school district organization/funding so that funding is not based on property tax values. This way rich areas won't have the best schools while poor ones have the worst. There is no equal opportunity in Michigan when it comes to education.
3) Changing the way municipalities are structures as well as the rules about consolidation and annexation. Allow for Metro Detroit to consolidate into some form of regional government.

[MCP-001]

So instead what we get is a legislature that never accomplishes anything of substance, and is disproportionately biased against the metro area that's home to half the state's population and tax base.

If it is good for the entire state, then it should pass w/o difficulty.

Don't forget, those who can, are leaving Michigan en masse.

Population levels are dropping in cities throughout the area [[December should be a real hoot), so your argument may no longer be valid.

[Bearinabox]

If it is good for the entire state, then it should pass w/o difficulty.

I'm still not convinced that people who live in rural areas deserve to have their votes count more just because they live in rural areas. It sounds like something that maybe worked okay in the late 18th century, but now just makes no fucking sense.

Don't forget, those who can, are leaving Michigan en masse.

Population levels are dropping in cities throughout the area [[December should be a real hoot), so your argument may no longer be valid.

Are you saying that you think Michigan's population will become majority-rural in the near future? I highly doubt it, but let's say for the sake of argument that your prediction comes true. Wouldn't that invalidate the justification for giving rural voters more power? Wouldn't they then inherently have more power by virtue of being in the majority?

[MCP-001]

I'm still not convinced that people who live in rural areas deserve to have their votes count more just because they live in rural areas. It sounds like something that maybe worked okay in the late 18th century, but now just makes no fucking sense.

Are you saying that you think Michigan's population will become majority-rural in the near future? I highly doubt it, but let's say for the sake of argument that your prediction comes true. Wouldn't that invalidate the justification for giving rural voters more power? Wouldn't they then inherently have more power by virtue of being in the majority?

I'm saying that yes, it is a real possibility.

With the manufacturing base practically destroyed in the major cities, there is nothing to keep the majority of people living in Michigan, in Michigan.

The rural areas, which mostly consists of people in the agricultural business, have no reason to leave.

Does this "invalidate" things?

No, it just make the original reason for it moot.

[gazhekwe]

Agriculture isn't feeding as many families as it used to either and is becoming prohibitively expensive. You will find that rural areas are losing the younger people who must find jobs somewhere.

[Fnemecek]

A bicameral legislature is necessary step to make sure that unpopular, ill-conceived legislation does not pass in the legislature easily.

The problem is that a bicameral legislature does not prevent unpopular, ill-conceived legislation from passing easily. It only means that someone with a bad piece of legislation in the House needs to find someone with a bad piece in the Senate. The two collaborate and it moves forward.

A bicameral legislature only makes the process of governing more expensive.

The idea was to create a balance between the populated and rural areas of Michigan, similar to how the US Senate was originally set up balance out rural and populated states, until the SCOTUS Reynolds v. Sims decision. The idea was so that populated area, like Detroit, couldn't impose unpopular laws on rural areas of Michigan like the U.P..

Except that that's not how it's set up under our current constitution. Districts in the Michigan Senate has always been based on population.

This was created after the legislature got themselves into hot water several years back by perpetually giving themselves raises. It was created as an "escape hatch", so to speak, to get the raises without actually having to vote on them. The legislature also wrote it in that they must vote to NOT accept a pay raise.

Well, duh! Of course, the Legislature wants a system where they automatically get a pay raise. The question is: Why should be keep a Constitution in place that gives it to them?

Because Michigan Voters WANTED term limits back in '92. It passed by about 60-40, and prevented us from having perpetual politicians like Levin, Dingell and Conyers who rack up trillions in debt, support bad legislation and represent their political party more than they do their home district.

My question is why do we still have them?

Term limits haven't solved any of those problems. We still have career politicians, they just move around more frequently.

The only thing that term limits have done is to make the bureaucracy more entrenched.

Let me give you your analogy another way.

The people who write laws and democrats and republicans.

The people who will get spots writing a new constitution [[if approved), will be democrats and republicans. They don't give a rat's tail what you want, they will do the bidding of their party masters. Once a new constitution is written, it will become a take-it-or-leave-it proposition.

So, if you are looking at a new car, do you really want one that was built by Toyota?

So, what? You keep a Constitution that we know does not work because you don't want to have to risk rejecting another version of it in a couple of years.

We've hit rock bottom. The worst thing that can happen is that a Convention produces a version just like the one we have now.

[MCP-001]

The problem is that a bicameral legislature does not prevent unpopular, ill-conceived legislation from passing easily. It only means that someone with a bad piece of legislation in the House needs to find someone with a bad piece in the Senate. The two collaborate and it moves forward.

A bicameral legislature only makes the process of governing more expensive.

Specific examples of this legislation, please?

Except that that's not how it's set up under our current constitution. Districts in the Michigan Senate has always been based on population.

Right now, according to Reynold v Sims, you're right.

SCOTUS messed up how it was originally set up, and given us what we have today.

Well, duh! Of course, the Legislature wants a system where they automatically get a pay raise. The question is: Why should be keep a Constitution in place that gives it to them?

The thing is, they have been voting down those raises, just like those in Congress have for at least the past two years.

They don't look very good in re-election ads.

For an example of politicians distancing themselves from toxic votes, look at how the democrats nationwide are distancing themselves from Obamacare, the "stimulus" and the bailouts to see what I mean.

My question is why do we still have them?

Term limits haven't solved any of those problems. We still have career politicians, they just move around more frequently.

The only thing that term limits have done is to make the bureaucracy more entrenched.

Granholm is gone after December 31st. The House was cleaned out about two years ago, the Senate should be doing the same next year.

Not all politicians can play political musical chairs. Some have to get...real jobs.

So, what? You keep a Constitution that we know does not work because you don't want to have to risk rejecting another version of it in a couple of years.

We've hit rock bottom. The worst thing that can happen is that a Convention produces a version just like the one we have now.

Why do you keep arguing that it does not work?

Why do you also argue that things cannot get any worse?

If a con-con is approved in Michigan, businesses will be hesitant to move to Michigan because everything will literally be up in the air for about two years. What will the tax structure involve? What will be done with education? What will happen with labor law? Will a new constitution be conducive for business to set up or relocate in Michigan?

If businesses don't want to do that, we will effectively pause the economy right where it's at for the next two years.

I don't know about you, but I want to see it improve, not stand still.

[LodgeDodger]

I'm not at all in favor of a Constitutional Convention.

[Fnemecek]

Specific examples of this legislation, please?

That depends on your definition of "unpopular, ill-conceived legislation". My reply above was simply to demonstrate that having a bicameral system does not, in fact, prevent it from passing because a deal can always be struck.

Right now, according to Reynold v Sims, you're right.

So, what? We should keep paying higher taxes on the off chance that Reynolds in reversed?

Granholm is gone after December 31st. The House was cleaned out about two years ago, the Senate should be doing the same next year.

Term limits are forcing them to move to a different position. That does not, however, mean that anything will actually get better.

Why do you keep arguing that it does not work?

Because it doesn't. Why do you argue that the current system is fine?

If a con-con is approved in Michigan, businesses will be hesitant to move to Michigan because everything will literally be up in the air for about two years. What will the tax structure involve? What will be done with education? What will happen with labor law? Will a new constitution be conducive for business to set up or relocate in Michigan?

First, businesses aren't exactly beating a path to Michigan at the moment. There's nothing to suggest that will start to do if Proposal 1 goes down in flames.

Second, those things have been up in the air for several years already. Again, there's nothing to suggest that won't continue to be up in the air even if Proposal 1 goes down in flames.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, nothing changes the fact that our system is fundamentally broken. How long should we wait to fix a broken system?

[MCP-001]

That depends on your definition of "unpopular, ill-conceived legislation". My reply above was simply to demonstrate that having a bicameral system does not, in fact, prevent it from passing because a deal can always be struck.

A deal to do what? Expand the sales tax [[again)? Expanded entitlement programs? Impose a graduated income tax? Add more bennies to public employees?

People are leaving Michigan in droves. Those who are left and are still working are having a hard time making their own budget. They don't need some politician coming in and taking away that little they have left.

So, what? We should keep paying higher taxes on the off chance that Reynolds in reversed?

Given that this was originally intended as a check in our system of government, I am still saying "yes". Case in point: There were a number of tax hikes that went nowhere this Summer due to the fact that it was not only bad for Michigan, but there were enough people in the other Chamber who knew that cuts could be made.

Term limits are forcing them to move to a different position. That does not, however, mean that anything will actually get better.

If you want to see what happens w/o term limits, take a look at Washington. $13+ trillion in debt. Members passing bills that they do not read, much less understand if they did.

Do you really want that in Michigan?

Because it doesn't. Why do you argue that the current system is fine?

Because it is still able to perform the basic functions that are entrusted to it [[i.e. courts, etc).

First, businesses aren't exactly beating a path to Michigan at the moment. There's nothing to suggest that will start to do if Proposal 1 goes down in flames.

Second, those things have been up in the air for several years already. Again, there's nothing to suggest that won't continue to be up in the air even if Proposal 1 goes down in flames.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, nothing changes the fact that our system is fundamentally broken. How long should we wait to fix a broken system?

First, to a degree, that's correct. The main reason for business to hold onto their cash can be traced directly to Pres B.O.

But they are not holding on to all of it. If we want to turn Michigan's economy around, we need to do what we can to entice them to expand or bring those businesses here. Businesses don't like uncertainty. Taking as much of that out of the equation as possible improves our chances.

Second, not all of those things I've mentioned are in play at the same time. So that argument isn't valid.

As long as government performs it's basic functions, it's not really broken.

[5speedz34]

The state constitution was written 50 years ago during boom times. The average state constitution lasts 14 years. Everything the state does needs to be rewritten to avoid the path we are on. Anyone who intimately follows state politics knows this.

[DetroitPlanner]

I'm all for it, fnemechek has done an admiral job of pointing out some of the things that really are wasteful. If we have competent representatives, we should be able to keep them. The way it is set up now is that there is no reason to think long term. Hence we get what we got. I don't care if my representative in Lansing is a dem, GOP, socialist, or libratarian as long as they are effective in protecting my rights and producing a budget and plan that takes Michigan forward.

Why not shrink govt llegislature? These folks have found all sorts of reasons to 'shrink' govt by provding less services, delaying the revenue sharing to cities, splitting DNR into DNR and DEQ then re-constituting it as the DNRE. Time for these folks to get some of thier own medicine.

A smaller legislature will also lead to better prioritizing and fewer folks getting funding for pet projects.

[professorscott]

I agree with those who have posted that our state constitution is a disaster and needs to be rewritten from the ground up, but this proposal has about as much chance of passage as I have of being elected governor.

[Fnemecek]

MCP-001:
You're obviously quite happy with the way things are going for Michigan. I'm not sure what I can do or say to change your mind.

Enjoy the prosperity.

DetroitPlanner:
Thank you for recognition above. I'll see you at the polls on Tuesday, my friend.