Michigan Constitutional Issues

CRC Special Report Michigan Constitutional Issues

No. 360-05 A publication of the Citizens Research Council of Michigan April 2010 Fifth in a series of papers about state constitutional issues ARTICLE II - ELECTIONS

In Brief

At the November 2, 2010 general election, the voters of Michigan will decide whether to call a constitutional convention to revise the 1963 Michigan Constitution. The question appears on the ballot automatically every 16 years as required by the Constitution. The Constitution provides that a convention would convene in Lansing on October 4, 2011. If the question is rejected, it will automatically appear on the ballot again in the year 2026.

The Citizens Research Council of Michigan takes no position on the question of calling a constitutional convention. It is hoped that examination of the matters identified in this paper will promote discussion of vital constitutional issues and assist citizens in deliberations on the question of calling a constitutional convention.

Should a constitutional convention be convened, it would likely be called upon to amend or delete inoperative and obsolete provisions in Article II and to examine the article’s provisions related to direct democracy.

Introduction

Article II of the 1963 Michigan Constitution deals tions pertaining to direct democracy: recall, ini- with elections, and contains two original sec- tiative, and referendum. This article also estab- tions that are obsolete and one section added lishes, but does not define the role of, the State by initiative petition, the intent of which the Board of Canvassers, whose members have on United States Supreme Court has determined to several occasions challenged its traditional min- be unconstitutional. Article II also contains sec- isterial role.

Inoperative and Obsolete Provisions

State constitutions may not violate the provisions of Qualifications of Electors the United States Constitution. The language of a state constitution should reflect the reality of the Article II, Section 1 sets the minimum voting age in law and should be understandable to citizens. Pro- Michigan at 21 and creates residency requirements. visions of the state constitution that are inoperable In 1970, President Nixon signed an extension of the because they violate the provisions of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, setting a minimum voting constitution make the language of the state consti- age of 18 in all federal, state, and local elections. tution confusing and misleading. Inoperative provi- Oregon and Texas successfully challenged that part sions should be removed or revised to reflect the of the law; in Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), current state of the law. a divided U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional that section of the federal law that applied to Sections 1, 6, and 10 of Article II of the Michigan state and local elections. This raised the possibility Constitution are not consistent with the provisions that states that had established minimum voting ages of the federal constitution. other than 18 would have to maintain two sets of

CITIZENS RESEARCH COUNCIL OF MICHIGAN

MAIN OFFICE 38777 West Six Mile Road, Suite 208 • Livonia, MI 48152-3974 • 734-542-8001 • Fax 734-542-8004 LANSING OFFICE 124 West Allegan, Suite 620 • Lansing, MI 48933-1738 • 517-485-9444 • Fax 517-485-0423

CRCMICH.ORG CRC Special Report on Michigan Constitutional Issues voter registration records, one for ad valorem tax rate or bond is- fore unconstitutional.3 federal elections and one for state sues to be property owners. In and local elections. Kramer v. Union Free School Dis- Based on these and other cases, trict No.15, the U.S. Supreme it is clear that Article II, Section In 1971, the U.S. Congress pro- Court reversed a decision of a 6 would not be sustained were it posed, and three-fourths of the New York District Court. That to be challenged. Municipalities state legislatures ratified, the 26th court had dismissed a complaint no longer use property ownership Amendment of the United States by a bachelor who did not own as a criterion for participating in Constitution, establishing the na- or lease taxable real property, elections. tionwide minimum voting age to who challenged a state law that be 18: “The right of citizens of the provided that in certain school Federal Term Limits United States, who are eighteen districts, residents who were oth- years of age or older, to vote shall erwise eligible to vote could vote Article II, Section 10 seeks to not be denied or abridged by the only in school district elections if impose term limits on Michigan United States or by any State on they owned or leased taxable real members of the United States account of age.”1 That U.S. Con- estate or if they were parents or House of Representatives and stitutional amendment supersedes custodians of children enrolled in United States Senate. This sec- any state constitutional or statu- the local public schools. The U.S. tion, as well as additions to Ar- tory provision, including Article II, Supreme Court held that the rel- ticle V, Section 54 (term limits for Section 1 of the Michigan Consti- evant section of the New York law state legislators) and Article VI, tution. As a result, the minimum was unconstitutional because it Section 30 (term limits for state voting age in Michigan is 18, as violated the Equal Protection executive branch elected offi- provided in state law. Clause of the 14th Amendment.2 cials), were added to the 1963 constitution by initiated petition In addition, the Michigan Attor- In Cipriano v. City of Houma, the in 1992. The language clearly ney General has stated, based on U.S. Supreme Court found that a recognizes that the intent – plac- several United States Supreme Louisiana law that provided that ing term limits on U.S. senators Court cases, that the six-month only property taxpayers had the and members of congress – may residency requirement is no right to vote to approve the issu- be unconstitutional, and severs longer applicable. The current ance of revenue bonds for a mu- this provision from other parts of statutory requirement is 30 days. nicipal utility system violated the the initiative that impose limits on Equal Protection Clause of the state officers (which is not pro- Property Ownership 14th Amendment and was there- hibited by the U.S. Constitution). Requirement for Voting The 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Article II, Section 6 requires elec- Constitution limits the president tors voting on an increase in the

2 U.S. Supreme Court Center, U.S. 1 United States Government Print- Supreme Court Cases and Opin- 3 U.S. Supreme Court Center, U.S. ing Office, The Constitution of the ions, Volume 395, Kramer v. Union Supreme Court Cases and Opin- United States, www.gpoaccess.gov/ Free School District No.15 [395 ions, Volume 395, Cipriano v. City constitution/html/amdt26.html. U.S.621 (1969)]. of Houma [395 U.S. 701 (1969)]

CRC Board of Directors EUGENE A. GARGARO, Jr., Chair TERENCE M. DONNELLY ALEKSANDRA A. MIZIOLEK JERRY E. RUSH JEFFREY D. BERGERON, Vice Chair RANDALL W. EBERTS CATHY H. NASH MICHAEL A. SEMANCO NICK A. KHOURI, Treasurer DAVID O. EGNER PAUL OBERMEYER TERENCE A. THOMAS, Sr. JOSEPH R. ANGILERI INGRID A. GREGG BRYAN ROOSA AMANDA VAN DUSEN BETH CHAPPELL MARYBETH S. HOWE KENT J. VANA RICK DIBARTOLOMEO DANIEL T. LIS LYNDA ROSSI JEFFREY P. GUILFOYLE, President

2 CRC Special Report on Michigan Constitutional Issues to two terms, and 15 states in- tor who shall not have at- Senate, was in violation of the cluding Michigan have term lim- tained the age of thirty Federal Constitution.4 According its for state legislators (six years, and been nine years to the Michigan Legislature states have had legislative term a citizen of the United website, “The Supreme Court limits repealed or invalidated by States, and who shall not, held that: (1) states may not im- when elected, be an inhab- the courts). It is Article I, Sec- pose qualifications for offices of itant of the state for which tion 2 of the U.S. Constitution he shall be chosen. the United States representative that establishes the qualifica- or United States senator in additions for the U.S. House of Rep- In US Term Limits, Inc v Thornton tion to those set forth by the Con- resentatives: [514 US 779; 115 S Ct 1842; 131 stitution; (2) power to set addi- L Ed 2d 884 (1995)], the U.S. tional qualifications was not No person shall be a repre- Supreme Court ruled in a five to reserved to the states by the sentative who shall not have four decision that the U.S. Con- Tenth Amendment; and (3) state attained to the age of provision is unconstitutional when twenty five years, and been stitution prohibits states from it has likely effect of handicap- seven years a citizen of the adopting Congressional qualifica- United States, and who shall tions that are in addition to those ping a class of candidates and has not, when elected, be an enumerated in the Constitution. sole purpose of creating addi- inhabitant of the state in The case found that Amendment tional qualifications indirectly.”5 which he shall be chosen. 72 to the Arkansas Constitution, which prohibited an otherwise- Article I, Section 3 of the U.S. eligible candidate for Congress Constitution includes the mini- from being on the ballot if that 4 mum qualifications for the U.S. candidate had already served The OYEZ Project, U.S. Supreme Senate: three terms in the House of Rep- Court Media. resentatives and two terms in the 5 www.legislature.mi.gov No person shall be a sena-

Provisions Related to Direct Democracy

State Board of Canvassers constitute a quorum, and at least of State. one member of each party must • Canvassing state ballot pro- Created by the Michigan Consti- vote for an action to pass. posal petitions. tution of 1850 and continued in • Assigning ballot designations the 1908 Constitution and in Ar- According to its website, duties and adopting ballot language ticle II, Section 7 of the 1963 of the state Board of Canvassers, for statewide ballot proposals. Constitution, the state Board of which are statutorily determined, • Approving electronic voting Canvassers is mandated by the include the following: systems for use in the state. constitution and established in • statute. The constitution requires Canvassing (to canvass is to The controversy surrounding the that the board have four mem- examine or scrutinize) and Board of Canvassers relates to its bers and that a majority of board certifying statewide elections, function of certifying statewide members may not be from the elections for legislative dis- ballot proposals. Article II, Sec- same political party, but it does tricts that cross county lines, tion 9 provides for initiative and not clearly define the role of the and all judicial offices except referendum; Article XII, Section board. According to statute, the Judge of the Probate Court. 2 provides for amending the state • two Democrat and two Republi- Conducting recounts for state constitution. In both cases, peti- can members are nominated by offices. tions containing sufficient signa- • the political parties and appointed Canvassing nominating peti- tures must be filed with the Sec- by the Governor; three members tions filed with the Secretary retary of State’s Office in order

3 CRC Special Report on Michigan Constitutional Issues to place an issue on the ballot, authority. In 2002, the board did The Board of Canvassers’ author- and the Board of Canvassers is not certify two proposals which ity is ministerial: the board does authorized by law to certify those opponents claimed did not list all not have authority to disapprove petitions. of the constitutional provisions that a ballot proposal on the basis of would be affected. The Court of the content of the proposal or on The staff of the Bureau of Elec- Appeals later directed the board to complex legal analysis. Clarifica- tions, located in the Secretary of place one of those petitions, deal- tion of the extent of the board’s State’s Office, is available for con- ing with the distribution of tobacco authority could be addressed sultation on the design of an ini- settlement revenues, on the bal- statutorily. Elimination of the tiative petition format (the elec- lot. The Court agreed with the board would have to be accom- tion law is very specific in board that the other petition, deal- plished constitutionally. detailing the form and content of ing with the sentencing of drug statewide ballot proposals). The offenders, was insufficient (that Recall of Elected Officials Board of Canvassers may, but petition stated that it would add a need not, approve the language new section, Section 24, to Article Article II Section 8 provides for of a proposed petition. Approval 1 of the constitution, but Section the recall of elected officials other of a proposed ballot proposal by 24 already existed). The Court than judges of courts of record. the Board of Canvassers does not noted that the board has the re- Recall allows citizens to seek to imply endorsement of the pro- sponsibility to determine whether remove an elected official before posal, but only that the petition a petition’s form and wording are the end of that official’s term. meets the technical requirements correct, but that the board may not Recall is a political process, in of font size and form, so that the engage in complex legal analysis. contrast to impeachment, which petition cannot be challenged is a legal process for removing an later as to form. Rejection of a In 2005, the board bowed to po- elected official for violating a law. proposed petition does not pro- litical pressure when Democratic hibit signature collection, but members refused to certify bal- Recall was one of the Progressive does mean that the petitions lot initiative signatures and place Era initiatives to promote direct would be easier to challenge. the “Michigan Civil Rights Initia- democracy and make govern- tive,” a constitutional amendment ment more responsive and re- The Michigan Election Law speci- that banned certain affirmative sponsible, by giving citizens fies that the Board of Canvassers action programs on the Novem- power over unresponsive, incom- must ascertain if petitions have ber, 2006 ballot. The proposed petent, or otherwise unaccept- been signed by the requisite num- constitutional amendment, to ban able, (in Michigan, as in some ber of qualified and registered preferences in education, public other states, this includes politi- electors. The board also must employment, and public contract- cally unacceptable) elected offi- certify the language of the ballot ing, was opposed by a broad and cials. Michigan and Oregon were question and summary. The vocal coalition. The board’s re- the first states to allow recall of board may hold hearings, issue fusal was not predicated on a vio- state officials, in 1908. subpoenas, and administer oaths. lation of the form of the proposal The board is required to make an (the board had approved the pe- Michigan is one of 18 states that official declaration of the suffi- tition as to form in 2003) or the allow the recall of state officials, ciency or insufficiency of a peti- sufficiency of valid signatures, but and one of at least 36 states that tion at least two months prior to rather on allegations of misrep- allow the recall of local officials. the election. resentation of the content in the Michigan does not allow recall of process of obtaining signatures. judicial officers (there is divided A constitutional convention would The issue was placed on the bal- opinion on whether judicial offic- likely be asked to address ques- lot by order of the Michigan Court ers should be elected). Eight tions that have repeatedly arisen of Appeals and was approved by other states require specific about the extent of the board’s the voters. grounds for recall (malfeasance, conviction for a felony, misappro-

4 CRC Special Report on Michigan Constitutional Issues priation of public funds, etc.), but Signatures dated more than 90 on constitutional amendments, Michigan’s recall provisions are days before the petition is filed on petition of 20 percent of the more representative in acknowl- are invalid and are not counted. number that had voted in the pre- edging the political nature of re- Florida allows only 30 days to vious election, and with the ap- call efforts: “The sufficiency of collect signatures for recall of proval of the legislature voting in any statement of reasons or municipal or charter county offi- joint session) first appeared in the grounds...shall be a political cials; some states have no time 1908 constitution.8 rather than a judicial question.”6 limit for collecting signatures. The process of recall is specified Article II Section 9 of the 1963 in Michigan election law.7 Nationwide, recall efforts against Michigan Constitution authorizes state officials have generally been the use of initiative and referen- In Michigan, as in other states, unsuccessful, but two Michigan dum. A constitution convention the number of signatures re- state senators were successfully may consider whether Michigan quired on a recall petition is recalled in 1983. Attempts to should continue to permit use of higher than the number required recall local government officials these tools of direct democracy. for an initiative or referendum. are more frequent in Michigan. Michigan requires recall petitions Initiative Issues related to recall that a con- to have valid signatures number- The “initiative” is a proposal for stitutional convention would be ing at least 25 percent of the to- a new law (or a constitutional asked to address include the ef- tal number cast for governor in amendment, as provided in Ar- fect the possibility of recall may the last gubernatorial election in ticle XII, Section 2) that is placed have on elected officials faced with the electoral district of the officer on the ballot by a citizen petition. necessary, but politically unpopu- sought to be recalled. In other Michigan is one of 21 states that lar decisions. Policy questions in- states, the required minimum allow initiatives to propose stat- clude whether Michigan should number of signatures is based on utes, and one of 18 states that continue to allow recall, and if so, a variety of criteria: a proportion allow the initiative to propose under what conditions. Should of the number of inhabitants constitutional amendments. qualified to vote for a successor; recall be more, or less, difficult a proportion of the number of than now required (e.g. should the Michigan’s constitution provides votes cast for that position in the number of signatures required be for indirect initiative: once a suf- last election; a specific number increased or decreased, or should ficient number of valid signatures of qualified signatures; a propor- the reasons that justify recall ex- have been collected, the issue tion of all persons who voted in clude valid political positions)? goes to the legislature, and if the last election; a proportion of Should judges continue to be ex- approved by the legislature within the number of registered voters empt from recall? Should the me- 40 days, the proposal becomes at the time of the last election; chanics of the recall process be law without a vote of the people or a proportion of the total vote altered? or approval by the Governor. If for the candidate receiving the the legislature does not approve most votes at the last election. Initiative and Referendum the legislation, the proposal is submitted to the people. Michi- In the late 19th Century, U.S. ef- The period allowed to collect sig- gan is one of five states where forts to challenge the special in- natures in Michigan and four the legislature may place an al- other states is a 90-day window. terests that controlled the political process were informed by the Swiss, who had adopted direct democracy in the forms of refer- 6 National Council of State Legisla- endum in 1844 and initiative in 8 National Council of State Legisla- tures, Recall of State Officials, 1891. In Michigan, a limited and tures, Initiative and Referendum in March 21, 2006. restrictive form of initiative (only the 21st Century; Final Report of the 7 MCL 168.951-976. NCSL I&R Task Force, July 2002.

5 CRC Special Report on Michigan Constitutional Issues ternative proposition on the bal- one of 11 states that do not have • Amendment to prohibit the lot in addition to the initiative. this restriction. appropriation of public funds to pay for welfare abortions In the direct initiative process used A constitutional convention may unless the abortion is neces- in some other states, once a suf- revisit the process for putting ini- sary to save the live of the ficient number of valid signatures tiatives on the ballot. The Michi- mother, 1987 (no amendment has been collected, the issue is gan Constitution establishes a by legislature) placed directly on the ballot for minimum number of signatures • Amendment to require paren- determination by the voters. Two on petitions for initiatives equal tal consent for abortions per- states allow both direct and indi- to eight percent of the total votes formed on unemancipated mi- rect initiatives, 14 states allow di- cast for all candidates for gover- nors, 1990 (title and two rect initiatives for statutes, and five nor at the last gubernatorial elec- sections amended by legisla- (including Michigan) allow indirect tion (that number is currently ture) 9 initiatives. 304,101, according to the Secre- • Amendment to define legal tary of State). The required num- birth and the commencing of Purposes and Form. If the ini- ber of signatures must be col- legal personhood, 2004 (ruled tiative is retained, a constitutional lected within any 180 day period, unconstitutional in federal convention may wish to insert according to Michigan statute. Of court) language clarifying how the ini- the 21 states that allow the statu- • Amendment to repeal Public tiative may be used. Some states tory initiative, Massachusetts re- Act 228 of 1975, the single that allow the initiative restrict the quires the fewest signatures business tax, 2006 (no purposes for which it can be used. (three percent of votes cast for amendment by legislature)10 Initiatives that modify the rights governor in the last election) and of individuals; that affect the ju- allows the shortest time for gath- Of the 13 initiated legislative pro- diciary or prescribe court rules; ering signatures (60 days). A posals that did appear on the that amend the state constitution; few states require a number of ballot, seven were approved by that enact emergency measures; signatures equal to as much as the voters and six were rejected. that propose local or special leg- ten percent of the votes cast in The seven approved initiatives, islation; or that make appropria- last general election; some states and subsequent actions on those tions, may be prohibited. Some allow an unlimited amount of time statutes, are as follows: states prohibit the same measure to collect signatures. Michigan is being set before the voters more one of nine states that do not • Repeal Public Act 6 of 1967, often than once in three years. require a geographical distribu- to permit the establishment In Michigan, the initiative extends tion for petition signatures. Other of daylight savings time, 1972 only to laws that the legislature states require minimum percent- • New act to prohibit the use of may enact (the initiative may not ages of signatures to be from dif- nonreturnable beverage con- be used, for example, to reestab- ferent regions as defined by coun- tainers; to require refundable lish a minimum voting age of 21). ties or congressional districts. cash deposits for returnable containers; and to provide pen- Some states restrict statutory ini- Initiatives in Michigan. In alties for violation of the law, tiatives to a single subject, which Michigan since 1963, 17 initiatives 1976 (legislature amended title advocates claim enhances clarity proposing statutes have been and three sections and added and transparency. Michigan is certified. The Michigan Legisla- eight sections) ture approved four of these within the 40-day period allowed; those four proposals became law by 9 Steven L. Piott, University of Mis- legislative action and did not ap- souri Press, Giving Voters a Voice: 10 Michigan Secretary of State, Bu- pear on the ballot. Origins of the Initiative and Refer- reau of Elections website: endum in America, 2003. www.Michigan.gov/sos.

6 CRC Special Report on Michigan Constitutional Issues

• Amendment to revise stan- A law submitted by initiative and Besides considering continuation dards for grant of parole and approved by the voters takes ef- of the power of referendum, a to prohibit grant of parole for fect ten days after the vote is constitutional convention may certain defined crimes until certified. After an initiative peti- wish to revisit the process of ini- court imposed minimum sen- tion is approved by the voters, no tiating the referendum. Citizen tence is served, 1978 (one gubernatorial approval is neces- initiated referenda in Michigan section amended by legisla- sary, nor may the governor veto require a number of valid signature, one section repealed) the proposal. In Michigan, a tures equal to five percent of the • Amendment to prohibit util- three-quarters vote of the House total vote cast for governor in the ity increases without full no- and Senate is required to amend last gubernatorial election (the tice opportunity for hearing; or repeal an initiated statute (all Secretary of State’s Office indi- to abolish all rate adjustment of the amendments noted above cates this number is currently clauses; and to prohibit the in the list of initiated statutes re- 190,063). The petition may be public service commission quired this supermajority ap- circulated from the date the law from conducting two or more proval). Of the seven voter-ap- being challenged is enacted until proceedings on the same pe- proved initiated statutes, one had the filing deadline, which is 90 tition or application for rate no real effect (the call for a days after the final adjournment increase and from conducting nuclear weapons freeze); two of that legislative session. hearing on additional rate in- have not been amended (one was crease petition or application a repeal, leaving nothing to If the referendum petition is cer- when utility already has a amend); and four have been tified by the Board of Canvassers petition or application pend- amended (one extensively). as having sufficient signatures, ing, 1982 (one section the implementation of the law amended by legislature) Ten states restrict the legislature’s that is being contested is sus- • New legislation calling for power to repeal or amend an ini- pended, pending the determina- mutual, verifiable nuclear tiated statute; the California leg- tion by the voters. weapons freeze between the islature is prohibited from amend- Referenda cannot be used to re- United States and the Union ing or repealing an initiated scind acts that make appropria- of Soviet Socialist Republics statute. In 14 states, the legisla- tions or to meet deficiencies in and requiring transmission ture may repeal or amend an ini- state funds. This provision has of communication to United tiated statute at any time. led the legislature to include an States government officials, Referendum appropriation in controversial leg- 1982 (no amendment by islation to make the act referen- legislature) A popular “referendum” is a pro- dum proof. Because this provi- • New legislation to permit ca- posal placed on the ballot by a sion is in the constitution, any sino gaming in qualified cities, citizen petition to repeal a law limitation that would prevent 1996 (most of 36 sections have that has been enacted by the abuse of the provision by the leg- been amended by legislature) legislature and signed by the islature would have to be included • governor. Like the initiative, New legislation to permit the in the constitution. use and cultivation of mari- adoption of the referendum was juana for specified medical a Progressive Era response to the Although the signature require- conditions, 2008 (no amend- control of state legislatures by ment is less, referenda occur less ment by legislature)11 special interests. Michigan is one frequently than initiatives. Since of 24 states that permit citizen 1963 in Michigan, only seven ref- initiated referenda. (Legislative erenda have been placed on the referenda, also called legislative ballot by petition, and of those, 11 Michigan Secretary of State, Bu- propositions or legislative mea- only one was approved. That reau of Elections website: sures, are placed on the ballot November, 1988 referendum tar- www.Michigan.gov/sos. by the legislature.)

7 CRC Special Report on Michigan Constitutional Issues

Laws Subjected to Referendum by Petition Under the 1963 Michigan Constitution

Referendum Election called on Purpose of Bill Date Outcome Act 240 of 1964 To institute use of Massachusetts ballot in Nov. 1964 Rejected Michigan to prevent straight party ticket voting

Act 6 of 1967 To permit establishment of daylight saving time Nov. 1968 Rejected

Act 59 of 1987 To prohibit use of public funds for the abortion Nov. 1988 Adopted of a recipient of welfare benefits unless the abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother

Act 143 of 1993 To reduce auto insurance rates; place limits on Nov. 1994 Rejected personal injury benefits, fees paid to health care providers, and right to sue; and allow rate reduction for accident-free driving

Act 118 of 1994 To amend certain sections of Michigan Bingo Act Nov. 1996 Rejected

Act 269 of 2001 To amend certain sections of Michigan election law Nov. 2002 Rejected

Act 160 of 2004 To allow hunting season for mourning doves Nov. 2006 Rejected

Source: Michigan Manual 2009-2010, Michigan Legislative Service Bureau.

geted PA 59 of 1987, to prohibit on the right of citizens to directly There are concerns about “out- the appropriation of public funds participate in the process of pass- siders” and special interests fund- to pay for welfare abortions un- ing and repealing laws. Concerns ing initiatives. “To supporters, less the abortion is necessary to arise about the effect of direct initiatives and referendums are a save the life of the mother. In democracy on government when legitimate and often effective way addition to the seven petition ref- issues are placed directly before to bring unresponsive or erenda, 13 referenda were placed the voters, without the benefit of gridlocked government actions on the ballot by the legislature, a legislative balancing of compet- closer to majority preferences and and nine of those were approved ing policy needs; on the ease or empower citizens… Critics charge by the voters.12 Laws approved difficulty of placing an issue on that initiatives and referendums by referenda may be amended by the ballot; on the often confus- unwisely elevate the influence of the legislature at any time. ing language that makes it diffi- narrow interests, erode represen- cult for voters and public officials tative government…”13 Initiative and to interpret and predict the ac- Referendum Policy tual effect of proposals; and on The controversy surrounding the instances of alleged fraud in gath- ering signatures. The 1996 ca- initiative and referendum centers 13 sino initiative exemplifies another Phyllis Meyers, Initiative and Referendum Institute, University of concern: The language of that Southern California, Direct Democ- proposal required extensive racy and Land Use: Eminent Do- 12 Bureau of Elections website, amendment to allow implemen- main and Big Box Development at www.Michigan.gov/sos. tation of the voter-approved law. the Local Ballot Box, 2007.

8 CRC Special Report on Michigan Constitutional Issues

Conclusion

Section 1 of Article II of the 1963 Sections 7, 8, and 9, which al- Recall, initiative, and referendum Michigan Constitution should be low citizens to exercise direct de- were adopted as means to em- updated to make it conform to the mocracy through recall, initia- power citizens to challenge the U.S. Constitution’s minimum vot- tive, and referendum, are the perceived control of special inter- ing age. Based on various U.S. more interesting policy issues. ests over the state legislature. Supreme Court decisions, it is clear Not all states provide for direct Ironically, in recent times, these that Section 6 would also be de- democracy in this way, and ques- tools of direct democracy have, clared unconstitutional if chal- tions arise concerning the effect on occasion, been used by spe- lenged. Section 10 should be these citizen rights have on the cial interests to achieve their eliminated because it seeks to es- adoption of considered, balanced goals. While these processes tablish congressional term limits, legislation. A further question, exclude the checks and balances, a goal that the U.S. Supreme Court in the context of a constitutional the debate, deliberation, and has found to be unconstitutional. convention, is whether, and compromise that characterize All of these changes could be ac- which, aspects of these issues representative democracy, they complished by amendment or as should be addressed constitu- do engage citizens in discussions part of a general revision. tionally or statutorily. and determinations of important public policy issues.