Reserve constitutional changes for serious matters; reject Props 2-6

I urge statewide voters to make a forthright statement at the polls on Nov. 6 that the Michigan Constitution is not for sale.

Voting no on Proposals 2 through 6 stops special interest groups from hijacking the constitution, which is the state’s basic governing document.

None of the matters addressed by these amendments belongs in the Michigan Constitution:

* Proposal 2 would insert collective bargaining rights for public employees into the constitution. It is an attempt to roll back a bunch of recent legislation in Lansing, legislation that has limited union power and resulted in a wide range of public employee concessions. Passage of Proposal 2 would undoubtedly result in years of costly lawsuits to determine exactly what this poorly worded ballot proposal actually means in practice. The proposal is supported by a wide swath of in-state and out-of-state labor unions.

* Proposal 3 would require 25 percent of the state’s electricity to be generated by renewable energy sources by the year 2025. It builds on the state’s 2008 renewable energy standard passed in the Legislature, which is where such policy debates belong.  As the nonpartisan Citizens Research Council of Michigan has noted, the Michigan Constitution does not direct any other sort of private sector industry to so specifically change behavior or investment or business model. Like Proposal 2, this one is destined for lengthy court battles if passed by voters.

Proposal 3 is backed by a wide range of in-state and out-of-state environmental groups, with much of the proposal’s funding coming from outside Michigan.

* Proposal 4 would provide for collective bargaining for home health workers, many of whom are family members of the patients receiving care. In the full scope of public policy, this is a low level labor-management debate that belongs somewhere in a legislative committee or a state government agency. In the words of Center for Michigan Steering Committee member and journalist Jack Lessenberry, the constitution is meant to “set broad outlines for government, not serve as a Christmas tree to be hung with goodies for various special interest groups.”

* Proposal 5 would require a two-thirds vote in order to raise any taxes. Probably the most damaging of all of this year’s proposals, Prop 5 would shackle elected leaders’ ability to manage the affairs of the state. In effect, it makes it nearly impossible for the governor and legislators to reform the tax code over time. Had Proposal 5 been in place, last year’s business tax reforms or the school tax reforms of Proposal A in 1994 never would have happened. This effort has been bankrolled in large part by funds connected to the owners of the Ambassador Bridge.

* Proposal 6 would require a public vote to approve any international bridge or tunnel. This is an attempt by Ambassador Bridge owner Manuel Moroun and his team to stop construction of a second international bridge over the Detroit River as agreed to by Gov. Rick Snyder and the Canadian government. Littered with a never-ending stream of highly erroneous and misleading political ads, the Proposal 6 effort is possibly the most cynical and self-interested political campaign in Michigan history.

Baking these special recipes for special interests into the state constitution is simply not good government in the public interest. In expressing these views, I’m also setting out the concerns and opposition to Proposals 2-6 expressed by a nearly unanimous majority of the Center for Michigan’s Steering Committee, a bipartisan group of veteran public leaders, which I chair.

The terrible truth of these ballot proposals is that most of the signatures that got them on the ballot were bought and paid for by signature solicitation companies. That puts basic government policy as articulated in the Constitution up for sale to the highest bidder. Michigan voters are the last line of defense against this kind of government for sale.

Editor’s note: Former newspaper publisher and University of Michigan Regent Phil Power is a longtime observer of Michigan politics and economics. He is also the founder and chairman of the Center for Michigan, a nonprofit, bipartisan centrist think–and–do tank, designed to cure Michigan’s dysfunctional political culture; the Center also publishes Bridge Magazine. The opinions expressed here are Power’s own and do not represent the official views of the Center. He welcomes your comments via email.