What do you conservatives think of this MI ballot proposal?

[SpartanGreenMike]

Without addressing the pros or cons of the prposal, I predict it will never see the ballot.

The Michigan Constitution, when describing the procedure for voter-initiated changes, states each proposal may only change ONE section/article of the existing Constitution.

I would guess this proposal changes four or five sections/articles (at least).

[VP Sarah Palin]

New poll says the vast majority of Michigan Voters support it.

Poll: Michigan voters support proposed state constitution amendment | Freep.com | Detroit Free Press

Ironically, the most eager endorsers of the proposal [...] were Republicans, 73% of whom support the proposal, according to pollster Liz Gerloff. The poll of 600 likely voters had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

[sprtnbrn]

Originally Posted by #1

New poll says the vast majority of Michigan Voters support it.

Poll: Michigan voters support proposed state constitution amendment | Freep.com | Detroit Free Press

Adam, please tell me that you're not gullible enough to support this proposal. WOTS, says the proposal includes a part about setting up term limits for US Congressional seats. The supporters know that part will be immediately thrown out by the courts since National law supercedes states law on that one. My question for them is why include a stipulation that you know will be immediately thrown out. This bill is too much and could lead to utter chaos in the period between November 2008 and January 2009 if it gets passed.

[Bullwrinkle]

The intent of the proposal is good - as I don't anyone here can claim that we don't have about the worst performing state govt possible. But they are biting off more than they can chew.

A simple part time legislature proposal would have a lot better chance of passing.

[VP Sarah Palin]

Originally Posted by sprtnbrn

Adam, please tell me that you're not gullible enough to support this proposal. WOTS, says the proposal includes a part about setting up term limits for US Congressional seats. The supporters know that part will be immediately thrown out by the courts since National law supercedes states law on that one. My question for them is why include a stipulation that you know will be immediately thrown out. This bill is too much and could lead to utter chaos in the period between November 2008 and January 2009 if it gets passed.

Of course not. In fact, I was the FIRST person to point out in this thread that the Democrats were behind this proposal and that they had less than desirable intentions. See the white text under my OP if you don't believe me.

Originally Posted by Bullwrinkle

The intent of the proposal is good - as I don't anyone here can claim that we don't have about the worst performing state govt possible. But they are biting off more than they can chew.

A simple part time legislature proposal would have a lot better chance of passing.

Actually it looks like THIS version has a pretty solid chance (70%) of passing. Republicans hear "less government, lower salaries" and it overwhelms their ability to use the rest of their brain.

[WixomSpartan]

Originally Posted by #1

New poll says the vast majority of Michigan Voters support it.

Poll: Michigan voters support proposed state constitution amendment | Freep.com | Detroit Free Press

'LANSING --Michigan voters overwhelmingly support the ideas contained in the proposed Reform Michigan Government Now! constitutional amendment, according to a poll released Monday by backers of the amendment.'

[sprtnbrn]

Originally Posted by WixomSpartan

'LANSING --Michigan voters overwhelmingly support the ideas contained in the proposed Reform Michigan Government Now! constitutional amendment, according to a poll released Monday by backers of the amendment.'

Also, you just know the question was worded something like this:

"The Reform Michigan Government Now proposal will among other things reduce the size of the legislature, reduce pay for elected officials, and force elected officials to get the same benefits as other government employees like teachers. Do you support the Reform Michigan Government Now proposal?"

[WixomSpartan]

Originally Posted by sprtnbrn

Also, you just know the question was worded something like this:

"The Reform Michigan Government Now proposal will among other things reduce the size of the legislature, reduce pay for elected officials, and force elected officials to get the same benefits as other government employees like teachers. Do you support the Reform Michigan Government Now proposal?"

You are correct in saying that how the poll question was worded is critical. The exact wording is included with the link above. Basically, it lists a bunch of hot button issues that were extracted from polling data and asks the voter if he / she likes them. Of course the answer is usually going to be 'yes', since the issues were already polled separately. As even the article itself notes, the poll does not indicate that most voters support changing the state constitution. Rather, it indicates that most voters 'support the ideas contained' in the amendment. BIG difference.

[sprtnbrn]

Originally Posted by WixomSpartan

You are correct in saying that how the poll question was worded is critical. The exact wording is included with the link above. Basically, it lists a bunch of hot button issues that were extracted from polling data and asks the voter if he / she likes them. Of course the answer is usually going to be 'yes', since the issues were already polled separately. As even the article itself notes, the poll does not indicate that most voters support changing the state constitution. Rather, it indicates that most voters 'support the ideas contained' in the amendment. BIG difference.

So, it was an internal poll that asked the voter about previously test polled ideas and omitted the more controversial parts of the proposal. How did it only get 70% approval?

[Dr. X]

Originally Posted by Nommad

Everything sounds pretty good, but who would be the "non-partisan leader" of the redistricting?

[Negotiator]

Originally Posted by Nommad

Everything sounds pretty good, but who would be the "non-partisan leader" of the redistricting?

[WixomSpartan]

Originally Posted by sprtnbrn

So, it was an internal poll that asked the voter about previously test polled ideas and omitted the more controversial parts of the proposal. How did it only get 70% approval?

Most likely it got the same approval percentage as the orginal polls. All this poll is really telling you is that 70% of voters are mad at the status quo and want changes.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Turns out this is a Democrat Party ploy.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...TQ5YjIxZjZkZDI=

This November, voters in Michigan may be asked to consider a lengthy ballot initiative to revise the state’s constitution. Proposed by a group called Reform Michigan Government Now, the initiative’s ostensible purpose is to restore efficiency and accountability to Michigan government. A look at the fine print, and a recently disclosed strategy document, reveals something altogether different: A stealth campaign to restructure all three branches of government, including the state judiciary, for partisan advantage.


Proponents proclaim the ballot initiative is a bipartisan effort to improve Michigan government, but a recently disclosed strategy document revealed a more partisan agenda. According to a PowerPoint presentation drafted by political consultants working for initiative proponents, the ballot initiative’s primary virtue is its potential to hand control of Michigan government over to the Democratic party for at least a decade.

The presentation was delivered to a union leadership conference this past spring. A graduate student intern at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a Michigan-based free-market think tank, discovered the slides on the United Auto Workers Region 1-C website. This discovery revealed a breathtakingly cynical stealth campaign to rewrite the state constitution. As the title slide explains, the plan’s true purpose is “Changing the rules of politics in Michigan to help Democrats.”

(I)nitiative proponents want to seize partisan control of the Court in one fell swoop by eliminating two seats and removing two Republican appointees from the Court. This is no accident, as the presentation makes clear when describing the relevant plank in the proposal: “Reduce the number of Supreme Court justices from seven to five; two GOP justices eliminated” (emphasis added).

The proposal would also eliminate eight seats on the state courts of Appeals, six of which are held by Republicans. This, too, is no coincidence, as the slides trumpet that “most” of the judges who would lose their jobs were appointees of former Republican Governor John Engler. But the plan is not about shrinking government down to size, as it would allow the state’s current Democratic governor to place ten new trial judges on the bench.

A populist campaign that focuses on “accountability” and “reform,” the presentation’s authors note, should cost only $5 million, “Less than half the cost of trying to beat an incumbent GOP justice.” Yet the plan is also so brazen that it has some Democratic lawmakers upset. One Democrat-appointed judge even called the plan “reverse court packing,” and he did not mean that as a compliment.

[VP Sarah Palin]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

Turns out this is a Democrat Party ploy.

Turns out I knew that all along...read the thread

[Dr. Strangelove]

Originally Posted by #1

Turns out I knew that all along...read the thread

I vaguely remembered the thread and then didn't bother to read it when I pasted my link. Hat tip to you.

[SD Spartan]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

Turns out this is a Democrat Party ploy.

Jonathan H. Adler on Michigan on National Review Online=

This November, voters in Michigan may be asked to consider a lengthy ballot initiative to revise the state’s constitution. Proposed by a group called Reform Michigan Government Now, the initiative’s ostensible purpose is to restore efficiency and accountability to Michigan government. A look at the fine print, and a recently disclosed strategy document, reveals something altogether different: A stealth campaign to restructure all three branches of government, including the state judiciary, for partisan advantage.


Proponents proclaim the ballot initiative is a bipartisan effort to improve Michigan government, but a recently disclosed strategy document revealed a more partisan agenda. According to a PowerPoint presentation drafted by political consultants working for initiative proponents, the ballot initiative’s primary virtue is its potential to hand control of Michigan government over to the Democratic party for at least a decade.

The presentation was delivered to a union leadership conference this past spring. A graduate student intern at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a Michigan-based free-market think tank, discovered the slides on the United Auto Workers Region 1-C website. This discovery revealed a breathtakingly cynical stealth campaign to rewrite the state constitution. As the title slide explains, the plan’s true purpose is “Changing the rules of politics in Michigan to help Democrats.”

(I)nitiative proponents want to seize partisan control of the Court in one fell swoop by eliminating two seats and removing two Republican appointees from the Court. This is no accident, as the presentation makes clear when describing the relevant plank in the proposal: “Reduce the number of Supreme Court justices from seven to five; two GOP justices eliminated” (emphasis added).

The proposal would also eliminate eight seats on the state courts of Appeals, six of which are held by Republicans. This, too, is no coincidence, as the slides trumpet that “most” of the judges who would lose their jobs were appointees of former Republican Governor John Engler. But the plan is not about shrinking government down to size, as it would allow the state’s current Democratic governor to place ten new trial judges on the bench.

A populist campaign that focuses on “accountability” and “reform,” the presentation’s authors note, should cost only $5 million, “Less than half the cost of trying to beat an incumbent GOP justice.” Yet the plan is also so brazen that it has some Democratic lawmakers upset. One Democrat-appointed judge even called the plan “reverse court packing,” and he did not mean that as a compliment.

Interesting. That's the first thing I noticed was the elimination of Judges. (see earlier post) That was really the only odd part of the reform. The rest kinda masks the real agenda as much of the stuff is Conservative in nature...basically a smoke screen to push through the real agenda which is court control and redistricting

[VP Sarah Palin]

...annnnnd dead.

Reform ballot proposal rejected

[VP Sarah Palin]

Appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.

Michigan Supreme Court will hear appeal of government reform proposal

Separately, the justices declined to disqualify themselves from the case even though two of them would lose their jobs if the measure appears on the ballot and is approved by voters. The remaining five justices would have their salaries cut 15 percent, or $24,691 annually.

[VP Sarah Palin]

Originally Posted by #1

Appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.

Michigan Supreme Court will hear appeal of government reform proposal

And dead again....

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...368/1409/METRO

[Spartytruth]

It was a horrible plan - judges everywhere would quit because otherwise their pensions would be based on the new salaries.

[sprtnbrn]

Originally Posted by Spartytruth

It was a horrible plan - judges everywhere would quit because otherwise their pensions would be based on the new salaries.

The judges weren't the only ones who were going to resign.

[spacemaker2]

Wasn't that the one that was found unconstitutional because there were too many changes without a constitutional convention?