Remodel Michigan's governing document a piece at a time, but avoid the free-for-all of a constitutional convention

Does Michigan’s constitution, now 43 years old, need a facelift? A bipartisan group, Citizens for Michigan, thinks so and called recently for a series of mostly sensible constitutional changes. Among them:

Increasing legislative term limits, currently set at six years for Representatives and eight years for Senators, to 12 years. This makes perfect sense. Term limits have turned out to be a bad idea whose time when they were adopted. The net effects have been to downgrade lawmakers’ experience, trigger a frenzy of campaigning for higher offices and encourage silly short term thinking in Lansing about long term issues.

Banning out of state interests from proposing amendments to the constitution or requiring that such proposals be approved at two successive general elections. This, too, is a good idea. Of all the big states, Michigan has “by far” the easiest procedure to propose constitutional amendments, according to John Axe, an instructor at Wayne State University School of Law and chair of the group.

Only 15 states allow voter-initiated amendments to their constitutions. Michigan requires signatures of only 10 percent of the number of votes cast for governor in the prior election, which comes to 380,125 for the ballots in 2008 and 2010. This means Michigan is an easy target for out of state groups looking to advance a cause. In fact, this is how U. S. Term Limits, an outfit in Glenview, IL, pushed term limits down our throats back in 1992.

Citizens for Michigan also called for gubernatorial appointment, instead of direct election, of members of the governing boards of the University of Michigan, Michigan State and Wayne State. I’m somewhat conflicted about this proposal, having been once elected to serve on the UM board.

But over the years it’s become increasingly tough for candidates to avoid irrelevant litmus tests imposed on candidates at political conventions, anti- abortion for Republicans and pro-union for Democrats. Moreover, when electing members of higher education boards, voters know virtually nothing about the candidates, their backgrounds and their stances on the issues. The result is an electoral crapshoot.

On balance, appointing members of governing boards makes sense.

There are a number of other suggestions made by the Citizens for Michigan group; most of them make perfectly reasonable, including allowing local governments the ability to levy taxes for roads and mass transit systems. This introduces the possibility of multi-county or regional transportation departments instead of county road commissions.

The larger question is whether actually to call a constitutional convention. The constitution approved in 1963 calls for voters to decide whether to call for a constitutional convention in 2010, and the Citizens for Michigan report calls for one. They argue the existing constitution needs a wholesale makeover that can only be done in full convention.

That’s a bad idea. Back in 1962, when delegates to the last constitutional convention were chosen, Michigan politics were managed by a set of very powerful and relatively reasonable godfathers: Walter Reuther, then president of the United Auto Workers; Neil Staebler and John Feikens, chairmen respectively of the state Democratic and Republican Parties; various powerful GOP and business leaders. There were a few crazies back then, but they were effectively marginalized.

Not today. Raging ideologues from all sides infest the Michigan political environment these days, ranging from Right to Lifers to slavery reparationists, from ultra liberals to hard right wingers. Worse, we lack the powerful, centrist political leaders who can shut the crazies up and keep them out of any constitutional convention.

The amount of mischief that could be done at a convention to our relatively benign constitution is enormous. Far better to persuade the legislature to put their amendments on the ballot without having to go the extreme of a convention.

That said, the Citizens for Michigan report is a valuable contribution to our public dialogue in that it goes well beyond incrementalism and speaks to consequential matters. We need far more such discussion if we are to craft and adopt a far-reaching restructuring plan that can help lay the foundation for a more prosperous Michigan in the future.

***

Phil Power is a longtime observer of politics, economics and education issues in Michigan. He would be pleased to hear from readers at ppower@hcnnet.com. Phil Power is president of the Center for Michigan. However, these opinions and others expressed in Phil Power’s columns are individual opinions and do not in any way represent official policy positions of the Center for Michigan.