Editor’s Note: The Center recently referred to a column by former state schools superintendent Tom Watkins arguing in favor of a rewrite of the Michigan Constitution to cure some of the state’s public policy ills. In this guest column, Michigan Chamber President & CEO Richard Studley responds with the opposite argument…
By Richard K. Studley
President & CEO
Michigan Chamber of Commerce
On November 2, 2010, as Michigan voters go to the polls to elect a new Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, as well as all 148 members of the Michigan Legislature, voters will also be asked to decide whether to call a new constitutional convention for the State of Michigan – something our state constitution requires every 16 years. So what does this mean and why should Michigan’s electorate care? The short answer is that holding an open-ended convention would be expensive (estimated at $45 million or more) and could result in lengthy economic and political uncertainty for our state.
If voters approve the call for a new constitutional convention in 2010, delegates would be elected within six months. The election would be partisan, requiring a primary election and a general election to be held no later than May 3, 2011. One-hundred-and-forty-eight delegates would be elected, one each from every State House and Senate district. These 148 delegates would convene in Lansing not later than October 4, 2011, and the convention could last at least until July 2012.
It is important to note, constitutional conventions in Michigan are unlimited in scope – they can propose a completely new constitution or offer numerous amendments. For example, if voters approved the call for a constitutional convention in 2010, issues could include:
• State legislative and congressional district reapportionment – how to do it.
• Direct gubernatorial appointment of all department directors eliminating commission or board appointment of directors of DNR, Agriculture, Education, Civil Rights and Civil Service.
• An elected or an appointed judiciary.
• Election or appointment of the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and Wayne State University Governing Boards.
• Abortion rights.
• Term limits/Unicameral Legislature.
• Repeal of the State Officers Compensation Commission.
• Removal of the prohibition on the death penalty.
• Revisit the cap on the sales tax and the prohibition of a graduated income tax.
• Headlee tax limits and prohibition on new state mandates without state funding.
• Eliminate the elected posts of Secretary of State and Attorney General and provide for direct gubernatorial appointment.
• Public school district consolidation.
• Elimination of township government.
• Restore affirmative action programs by state government and public universities.
• Remove ban on same sex marriage.
• Permit physician-assisted suicide.
• Provide for drug legalization.
• Remove the prohibition on public aid to non public education.
• School funding and equity.
The Michigan Chamber of Commerce believes that constitutional change can and should come about on an issue-by-issue basis – which our state constitution currently allows – and not through a constitutional free-for-all at a convention.
The people of Michigan have adopted over the years four state constitutions – in 1835, 1850, 1908, and most recently in 1963. In contrast, the United States has had only one constitution over the past 222 years.
Since 1963, our current Michigan constitution has been amended 30 times; 37 proposed amendments have been rejected. Only nine of the 30 amendments adopted were a result of petition drives. Twenty-one of the 37 proposed amendments rejected by the voters were placed on the ballot by petition.
In 1978, the automatic question to call a new constitutional convention went before state voters for the first time since adoption of the 1963 constitution. Michigan voters defeated the call by a 70 percent to 30 percent margin and in 1994 by a 72 percent to 28 percent margin. The Michigan Chamber organized the opposition to a call for a constitutional convention in both campaigns. We stand ready to lead the opposition again.
Our current state constitution has served Michigan citizens well. Although not perfect, it contains no fatal flaw and should be retained.
3 Comments
This is an argument against a constitutional convention? $45M isn’t much money to spend attempting the best structural remedy of getting at Michigan’s broken, redundant and dysfunctional system of state and local government, bought and paid for appellate courts, grossly wasteful criminal prison system and massive public school administration bureaucracies. To say nothing of the gray government waste of special interest groups and associations that run Lansing -including the State Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Studley claims a concon would beget lengthy political and economic uncertainty, isn’t that what we’ve been suffering with in Michigan for years? A concon might actually get the public interested in better, more efficient government. We need more transperency and less resistance to reform from the bloated special interests benefiting from morass.
I must agree with Mr. Studley’s assesment.
Only kneejerk reactionary CONCON activity is likely the outcome particularly in this time when already our federal government pushes the threshold of violating the US constitution, which will continue to drive more troubles for Michigan and other states. If we do anything at all, we need to turn down the option of wholesale discussion on it until we have steady times with which we can truly reflect on perhaps cleaning up language only.
The constitution of either this state, or the country ought not be thrown about in any particular partisan fashion. It is what it is. If we think it is worthwhile to make grand changes because of our “current” situation, we might as well throw IT and the ENTIRE process out, and succumb to MOB rule.
Good to hear the level of debate rising on this issue. Would it be a fair to think that the reason this issue is not covered in mainstream Michigan is that Michigan media itself has already taken a position? A quick search on Michigan’s two newspaper web sites reveals zero (0) hits on the term “constitutional convention” or “con-con”. Maybe people are just too busy with the immediate concerns of raising their families and holding on to their jobs. Or maybe it’s the reason people like me come to blogs like this for the news now.
With the list of hotbutton issues, the author effectively makes the point about how difficult it will be to put together a new Michigan Constitution. (To the list I’d make it easier for the Governor to remove a mayor from office. But I digress…)
The cost doesn’t bother me; I see $45 million as an investment. Going at making changes issue-by-issue might work. If you’ve followed the sausage-making going on in those packaged federal economic stimulus bills then you shouldn’t wish the same for Michigan. With the issue-by-issue approach, however, you risk voter fatigue. Without the issue-by-issue approach, you can at least re-examine the fundamental relationships between the three branches and the configuration of the intermediate agencies between our elected officials and the citizens.
That conversation should be revisited every 16 years. Even if the outcome results in an endorsement of what we’ve already got, or some kind of a hybrid thing in which we agree upon a new structure for making issue-by-issue changes going forward, a con-con will have at least made possible the synergy of interested citizens sitting in a room together hashing things out.
I am sympathetic to the Chamber of Commerce’s concerns. It’s great to be having this debate. There is a logical fallacy in this particular argument, however — the fallacy of the appeal to popularity. Appeals to popularity suggest that an idea must be true simply because it is widely held. This is a fallacy because popular opinion can be, and quite often is, mistaken. Hindsight makes this clear: there were times when the majority of the population believed that the Earth is the still centre of the universe, and that diseases are caused by evil spirits; neither of these ideas was true, despite its popularity.
We are living in interesting times. I hope everyone commenting on this article would simply read our Constitution before making a judgment. It is available at this link:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/Constitution.pdf
I can’t resist adding another wish-list item before I stop typing. Wouldn’t it be cool if we could write into our new constitution that parliamentary thing the British and Canadians do when their prime ministers have to stand in front of both upper and lower houses and take pot shots from the opposition? They do it every week like Socrates speaking at the Agora and you can see it on CSPAN. (Check your local listings) Its absolutely hysterical…and you get to hear the most beautiful English spoken….
Imagine how having this job task written into a new Michigan Constitution would cull the gubernatorial candidates. We would have to raise the pay of the governor because anyone who could speak as eloquently, morally, and extemporaneously as, say, a Tony Blair, would find greater reward running a multi-national corporation. Hmmm — shouldn’t that be the kind of Chief Executive we would want anyway?