Early voting is already underway in Michigan via absentee ballot. 
Meanwhile, misleading ads, most of which are being run by dark money PACS, have sought to confuse voters so that many of us don’t have any idea as to how to vote on these proposals, or in some cases, what the issues are behind the proposals.
This is my small effort to explain the proposals and the possible outcomes. It’s up to you to cast your vote appropriately.
Michigan PROPOSAL 1
Proposal 1 is a petition which "seeks to invoke the right of referendum for the Emergency Manager Law" enacted in 2011, and known as (Public Act 4 or PA 4). As you probably noted, the wording of the proposal is confusing (which is no doubt, intentional).
Nevertheless, if enough Michigan Voters choose "NO" on Proposal 1, the hated, undemocratic, Public Act 4, also known as the Emergency Manager Law, will be repealed in its entirety.
If you vote “yes” on Proposal 1, you are voting to provide the legitimacy of “public approval” to PA 4 (the Emergency Manager Law), and it will be invoked in it’s entirety. I don’t personally know anyone who would want that.
My recommendation is to vote “NO”.
Michigan PROPOSAL 2
The purpose of Proposal 2 is to allow for an amendment to the Michigan Constitution which would make collective bargaining a right in Michigan.
This proposal is backed by both unions and workers, and is essential to protect our jobs and standard of living. The negative ads are being paid for by right wing anti-union sources, and I urge you strongly not to fall for their outright lies.
If a majority of Michigan voters vote “yes” on Proposal 2, the ability to organize and collectively bargain will become a right in Michigan, something that lawmakers can not toss aside as they have done in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and yes, Michigan, as well as in many other states.
My recommendation is to vote “YES”.
Michigan PROPOSAL 3
The purpose of Proposal 3 is to create an amendment to the Michigan Constitution which would require Michigan’s public utility companies to obtain at least 25 percent of their electricity from clean and renewable energy sources by 2025.
Current Michigan law requires that Michigan public utility companies obtain at least 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources. Proposal 3 would increase this requirement by an additional 25% by 2025.
Despite the misleading ads you may have seen, the language in the amendment created by Proposal 3 would prevent the utility companies from increasing rates to consumers by more than 1% annually to pay for the changes. I’m sure you’ve now figured out that the utility companies are behind the push to vote “no” on this proposal.
Proponents of Proposal 3 cite the passage of the amendment as a significant boon to Michigan’s economy, that it would create more than 90,000 jobs, and reduce air pollution.
A “YES” vote on Proposal 3 would amend the Michigan Constitution
to require that 25% of electric energy be obtained from clean and renewable sources (solar, wind power, and so forth).
UPDATE on Prop 3: You can view the supporters of the opposition ad campaign here. As you might expect, it is primarily the utility companies, other businesses and the various Chambers of Commerce that are funding the opposition.'
UPDATE 2 on Prop 3: Bill Clinton has now given his support to Prop 3.
My recommendation is to vote “YES”.
Michigan PROPOSAL 4
Proposal 4 would also amend the Michigan Constitution to create security for Michigan home care workers, and thus preserve the right of Michigan citizens to remain in their homes rather than in a nursing home or other institution if they so choose. The language of the proposal as follows, emphasis mine:
The anti-union forces are against Proposal 4 and include the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, and Gov. Rick Snyder.This proposal would:
- Allow in-home care workers to bargain collectively with the Michigan Quality Home Care Council (MQHCC). Continue the current exclusive representative of in-home care workers until modified in accordance with labor laws.
- Require MQHCC to provide training for in-home care workers, create a registry of workers who pass background checks, and provide financial services to patients to manage the cost of in-home care.
- Preserve patients’ rights to hire in-home care workers who are not referred from the MQHCC registry who are bargaining unit members.
- Authorize the MQHCC to set minimum compensation standards and terms and conditions of employment.
My recommendation is to vote “YES”.
Michigan PROPOSAL 5
Prop 5 is yet another proposed constitutional amendment which would essentially fulfill Grover Norquist’s “No New Taxes” pledge. It would prevent the state from levying any new taxes on citizens, as well as preventing an expansion of the tax base unless a 2/3 majority of the members of both the Michigan House and the Michigan Senate approve or unless a majority of citizens approve, after a statewide vote has been held.
In simple terms it would mean that only 13 Michigan legislators could prevent any tax increase, even if 135 legislators vote for it. This would, in effect, give lobbyists and others (such as billionaire Matty Maroun) reason to celebrate.
Proposal 5’s spot on the ballot was financed by billionaire Matty Maroun, and is backed by Grover Norquist, Mr. Anti-Tax Conservative himself. In fact, Norquist has caused all kinds of problems in the U.S. House and Senate, so it would be wise to keep him out of our state politics.
A “NO” vote by Michigan citizens would ensure that tax revenues could be raised as circumstances warrant. A “Yes” vote plays into the hands of Republicans such as Grover Norquist, and essentially prevents taxes from being raised when needed.
My recommendation is to vote “NO”.
Michigan PROPOSAL 6
Proposal 6 is a proposed constitutional amendment. With enough "Yes" votes from Michigan citizens, the State of Michigan would be required to hold a statewide vote before expending state funds “or resources for acquiring land, designing, soliciting bids for, constructing, financing, or promoting new international bridges or tunnels”.
This is once again about billionaire Matty Maroun and the Ambassador Bridge, owned and managed by Maroun’s company:
The Detroit International Bridge Co. filed the measure in response to a proposed project aimed at constructing a new international bridge increasing the number of lanes connecting Detroit to Windsor in Canada. The project, called the New International Trade Crossing (NITC), would compete for traffic with the Detroit International Bridge Co.'s current bridge, the Ambassador Bridge.
My recommendation is to vote “NO”.
Recent Comments