3 hot political reforms not heading Michigan’s way

While some states are making it easier for residents to vote, while others are passing restrictions on when and where residents can vote.

Laments that our political system is broken are common, and come from both parties. On the right, commentary is growing about a national “Article V convention” – described as a way for the states to call a constitutional convention without congressional approval. On the left, the issues coalesce mainly around making voting easier and money in politics. And new studies confirm the divide is deep and widening.

The political reform movement in the U.S. is broadly defined and mostly unorganized behind a single issue, but some common themes can be seen, among them:

1. Election reform. Two states, Washington and Colorado, have enacted significant changes in voting procedure in recent years.

Washington votes entirely by mail, and other states, mostly in the west, have some form of postal voting as an option. In Colorado, a package of reforms signed into law last year extends early voting, eases restrictions on registration and generally makes it easier and more convenient to cast a ballot.

2. Redistricting reform. Efforts to change the way congressional (or state legislative) districts are drawn following U.S. censuses are at least being discussed in many states, but California led the way with its citizens redistricting commission. While there have been questions about whether Democrats were able to game the commission in their favor, voters have approved not only redrawing congressional district boundaries, but also state legislative districts.

3. Campaign finance. New York was poised to change the way politics is funded in the Empire State, with Gov. Andrew Cuomo pushing a package that would have made matching funds available for all candidates, lowered contribution limits and instituted other changes designed to make ballot spots more accessible to more candidates. However, the legislature ended up passing only a pilot program, and only for one race.

Nationally, the Supreme Court has interpreted spending on campaigns as tantamount to speech. And two major decisions, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. the same defendant, unleashed a flood of corporate spending on campaigns through the lifting of contribution limits.

In Michigan last year, Secretary of State Ruth Johnson sought to add public-disclosure rules to so-called issue advertising, in which groups unaffiliated with individual candidates nevertheless advertise on behalf of them, or against their opponents. The legislature responded with a bill designed to prohibit such disclosure, and Gov. Rick Snyder signed it into law in December.