It’s time to rewrite Michigan’s Constitution to fix our broken state
If we want to reform state government now, the only way to do it is by Constitutional Convention. If you seek a dysfunctional state government -- look about you. Michigan’s government is broken and needs to be fixed. But don’t look to Lansing for a resolution. We continue to have a spend-and-pretend mentality at the state Capitol that ignores the long-term structural problems plaguing our state.
Fortunately, the power to repair our system of government lies in the hands of the voters. We can fix broken government by voting to hold a constitutional convention. We can take back our government by voting yes on the ballot question to review and update the powers by which we are governed. Michiganders this Nov. 2 will be asked whether to convene a constitutional convention to revise the state’s supreme law. The best answer is yes!
A lot has changed in our great state since 1963, the fourth and last time Michigan altered its Constitution. A growing chorus of people from every corner of our state and every political persuasion are fed up with a bickering, self-serving system of government that seems more beholden to special interests instead of the people’s interest. We have watched as governors and legislatures of both political parties have ignored the structural budget crisis, kicking the problems into the future for our children and grandchildren to solve. These issues could be addressed with reforms in a constitutional rewrite and a dash of leadership.
Education is considered critical to the success of states, particularly in this global, knowledge-driven economy. But can you tell me what partisan politician you voted for last November to serve on the Wayne State University, University of Michigan, Michigan State University, or state education boards? The Constitution allows the voters to select these representatives, yet few voters know who they are. Typically the party that dominates a particular election year sweeps its education candidates into office. All of the 12 other public university posts are appointed by the governor. Do we need to elect these positions?
Under our constitution we elect judges to the State Supreme Court on a nonpartisan ballot when they get on the ballot after being nominated by their respective political parties. How logical is that? An appointment system, done by an independent commission making three recommendations, from which the governor must choose one, ends the politicking.
Do we need a full-time Legislature? Do we require two houses of the Legislature, both a House and Senate, or would a unicameral system better meet our needs?
The current Constitution prohibits a graduated income tax. Today income earners pay a flat 4.35 percent tax on income. We should at least consider a graduated income tax comparable to the federal income system that would be more fair. Not taxing services in this economy makes no sense.
Typically, opponents argue that opening the Constitution would invite unwelcome, extremist proposals, which would help cement into the Constitution every pet peeve of the moment, from legalizing marijuana to allowing public funding for private and parochial schools, to permitting capital punishment.
But a “yes” will trigger a convention of 148 delegates, no sitting legislators allowed, which three times before proved too big to be hijacked. Besides, the voters must approve the new document. There are special interests vested in the status quo, that will try to scare the voters into preserving the current system. But as conditions continue to deteriorate in Michigan and long-term problems keep getting ignored, residents must keep asking: Is the current system of government in Michigan meeting our needs?
Clearly, there are risks when you open government for review by the people. However, constitutional convention members have tended to abide by the notion that a constitution is best when it lays out the framework of self-governance without locking specific policies into a document. Those are best left for legislative debate. For example, Wayne and Macomb Counties have passed new local charters or constitutions, on time and under budget helping to shepherd in needed reforms in Counties known for their rough-and-tumble politics.Like a 1963 car, the Michigan Constitution needs a makeover. It is best put in the hands of the people.
See www.energizemichigan.com on how to become involved in supporting a YES vote to hold a State Constitutional Convention.
John Logie is Of Counsel to the Michigan-based law firm of Warner Norcross & Judd LLP, and was Grand Rapids mayor from 1991-2003. Tom Watkins is a business and educational consultant, a former state superintendent of schools, state mental health director, and elected member of the Wayne County Charter Commission in the early 1980s.
Comments
AlphaAlpha
Wed, Sep 29, 2010 : 9:04 p.m.
Bravo katie. An excellent analogy.
katie
Wed, Sep 29, 2010 : 9:24 a.m.
The house I'm living in is over 50 years old. It's got great hardwood floors and real plaster. There are no plumbing problems. The roof is less than five years old and it was recently painted. New insulation was recently added to make it more energy efficient. The windows were replaced about 15 years ago. Still, the electric service box is a little small and I'd like to add a few more circuits. So, perhaps I should just raze the place and start over. After all, it's easier to put in electric circuits if you start from scratch, then you don't have to figure out how to put new outlets into the plaster. Plus, it could use new windows again, so I might as well raze it, and I could add new energy efficient doors at the same time. Oh, but wait. Imagine that I recently got laid off from my main job and my only income is from a small home business that I'm still running. There's a decent chance that this business will grow, especially if I put my all into it now that I'm laid off from my previous job. Any problems with this approach? Well, a main one is the cost. Razing it and rebuilding from the ground up will cost a lot of money, far more than putting in a new electrical service box and some circuits and some new outlets, even with the plaster walls. And for all I know, that new, untested wallboard may come from China and be toxic. If I use a bit of wallboard in remodeling, that would be fixable, not having to tear everything out or live with it. Plus, it will significantly disrupt my life if I have no place to live while the new house is being built. I can rent someplace but if I have a home business, that will be difficult from an apartment. Not to mention the contractors. They always argue and only care about their own specific systems. If someone is late in completing a job, the next crew may not agree to show up at a new time, or I may have to wait much longer. If the flooring installers mess up the walls, there will be arguments who should fix it, the flooring people or the wall people. I know that I will bear the cost in the end of these delays, arguments and finger pointing. And on and on. [No offense to contractors]. We have a perfectly good constitution, like the hardwood floors and plaster are good. It has stood the test of time, including being able to make modifications, pretty much like adding electric service, windows, and doors. The cost is unwarranted for a constitution that has not presented problems. It's not only the actual dollar cost at a time when we can ill afford it, but also the disruption to new business wanting to locate in a state where the laws that will govern them are uncertain. Not to mention the special issues groups that will squabble and finger point. No need to raze this house when repair and remodeling has proved to be just fine.
demistify
Mon, Sep 27, 2010 : 2:27 p.m.
"A lot has changed in our great state since 1963, the fourth and last time Michigan altered its Constitution." Wrong: The state constitution has been amended numerous times since; 1963 was the last time it was rewritten in its entirety. If the authors just wanted to fix individual flaws, the amendment process is easy. A lot more has changed since 1787, when the US Constitution was written. The Federal government has more to do with most of the problems the authors allude to than does the state government. Yet, the authors do not propose that we throw out the US Constitution and start over afresh. There is an anti-democratic undertone to the whole thing: The authors decry the contentious partisanship in Lansing and claim that it can be fixed by structural change; this is only true if the contemplated change would deprive the people of the right to elect partisan politicians, replacing them with an authoritarian elite. The authors do not explain how they propose that the members of the constitutional convention would be chosen, except for the ominous stipulation that existing legislators should be excluded. That would bar candidates whom the voter is more likely to recognize, making it easier to elect obscure ones backed and financed by special interests. It would also make it easier to manipulate the convention by excluding knowledgeable participants.
Michael Cohen
Mon, Sep 27, 2010 : 2:18 p.m.
There is widespread argument that what we have doesn't work, but most of the comments urge opposing the convention because it MIGHT produce something even worse. The convention would only produce a proposal, which voters still have to approve. We can always vote it down. We're afraid. We don't have the courage, or the confidence in our fellow citizens, to try to reorganize our affairs, as so many of our predecessors have done. If we are frightened to even have a discussion of what changes might be good, we are destined to cling to the present ship, even though everyone seems to agree is sinking.
dogpaddle
Mon, Sep 27, 2010 : 1:07 p.m.
I agree with donBee. Not only would prospective businesses avoid our already cash-strapped state until they see what we would end up changing, it would also further increase our debt and hurt the government funding of programs that have already felt the pinch like education. Yes, we do need fixing, but this is not the time or way to do it. We have a flexible document just like the Federal Constitution except We the People of Michigan have even more of a say-so as we the citizens can propose amendments and get them on ballots and alter our Constitution. A majority of citizens did it in 2004 to unjustly discriminate against gays and lesbians because some people were so afraid that a gay couple from Iowa could come here and somehow hurt their straight marriage. Their amendment (read: citizens' change to the Constitution) even made it illegal for gay couples to adopt unwanted children as a couple and made it illegal for their public employers to offer domestic partnership benefits to gay couples. So my point is, the Constitution does allow for We/You the People to make changes without going through the expensive and wasteful process of having a Constitutional Convention and rewriting an already flexible document. Fix the state, fix Lansing, but not the Constitution.
Top Cat
Mon, Sep 27, 2010 : 7:23 a.m.
The authors are stating that amoungst other things, this convention is a stalking horse to raise taxes. Our flat income tax is one of the few competitive advantages this state has. I agree with DonBee and will vote No on this as well.
AlphaAlpha
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 10:23 p.m.
All special interest groups tend to ask for favoritism in legislation, from corporations to public employee groups. Ultimately, however, it is the federal government which passes or not said legislation. They are the key enabler. Outsourcing was insignificant until recently; it has been accelerating rapidly only recently in historic terms. If you do or don't like the trade laws, they are D.C. driven.
northside
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 8:47 p.m.
Alpha I'm well aware that government 'free trade' agreements enabled the exodus of good paying jobs. But the private sector still bears primary responsibility both for the exodus and those trade agreements. Their fierce lobbying was what got them passed. The outsourcing did begin decades before agreements like NAFTA were passed. As soon as the labor movement earned decent wages and benefits for workers large companies starting looking to lands where they could once again enjoy the 'good old days:' low wages, no benefits, long workweeks, few safety regulations, etc. Agreements like NAFTA just sped up the pace.
AlphaAlpha
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 6:33 p.m.
"Michigan's hard times aren't the fault of government. " Wrong. They enabled it. You would do well to learn about international trade agreements; that knowledge would likely prevent misstatements such as those you made. The WTO agreements which allow offshoring were agreed to by your federal government. Such agreement was crucial to enable offshoring as it exists today.
northside
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 4:40 p.m.
Michigan's hard times aren't the fault of government. Several decades ago major companies realized that there is an endless supply of cheap labor in other nations and began to shift production there. Cities like Detroit, boomtowns for the first half of the 1900s, saw the economic rug yanked out. A similar thing has been happening in the service in knowledge sectors. But pointing out the real, private sector reason for the state's downfall wouldn't help Mr. Logie get contracts at Warner, Norcross, & Judd or Mr. Watkins get business consulting deals. Blame it on government? That's a sure sale.
ChrisW
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 12:59 p.m.
To paraphrase Lewis Black, we have two kinds of politicians: Those with no ideas and those with bad ideas. Nothing good would come from a Constitutional Convention. The right-wing will do their best to force their religious views on everyone, repeal liberal laws like medicinal marijuana, and discourage legal immigration with Arizona-like harassment. The left-wing will do their best to force every worker into a union so they can skim the proceeds and will raise taxes high enough to drive the few businesses and retirees that remain in Michigan out of the state. While a unicameral legislature would be more efficient, it would also let more crazy extremist ideas make it into law.
David Cahill
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 12:54 p.m.
The bad idea of a constitutional convention is required to be put to the voters every 16 years. The idea of convening such a convention has failed overwhelmingly each time it has been on the ballot. I hope and trust that it will fail again this November.
Kent2525
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 10:43 a.m.
No way, no how. I will vote NO to a Michigan Constitution redo. This is bad idea. Way to much to loose and not much to gain. Like someone else already said, their is already a way to fix things. This stinks like a progressive power grab to me. I would want to see what they want to change before I would even think to vote to let the process begin. NO NO NO NO and NO way.
AlphaAlpha
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 8:42 a.m.
A grain of truth: "These issues could be addressed with... a dash of leadership." But not with a convention, where way way too many variables are out of control. DonBee and Edward are quite correct; now is not the time for 1-2 years of legislative chaos; now is simply a time for new leadership.
DonBee
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 7:36 a.m.
I am sorry. This is the wrong time for a constitutional convention. People think that their issue will be fixed with a rewrite. This may or may not be true. What is true is there are a lot of people with a lot of issues. From taxes, to gay right and abortion. Each group will vie to send people to the convention, and they will all want their way. I do not want to be on the floor when abortion comes up, and it will. I do not want to be on the floor when gay marriage comes up and it will. I do not want to be on the floor when tax structure comes up and it will. So will term limits, the way judges are elected, hunting and gun rights; open shops and union limits; pensions and welfare; and more. If you want a stable environment to attract business, a constitutional free for all is the wrong answer. If you have an issue that needs fixed, you have a mechanism to fix it. Throwing out the baby, the bathwater and the basin all at the same time to fix your issue is not a good answer. I for one will vote against a constitutional convention. If you want chaos and businesses avoiding the state for the next 12 to 18 months, vote for a convention. If you want the state to have a chance to get back on its feet, vote no. We have more to lose in this effort than gain.
Heardoc
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 7:15 a.m.
For one -- the idea of a three member commission set up to vet supreme court judges and then send the recommendation on to the governor for appointment is a recipe for disaster. This is such a silly idea in that both John Logie and Tim Watson think that thus will remove politics from the decision. WOW! This process first removes the citizen from having a direct affect as to who is on the court and leaves this to some un-elected body of three people that then send their recommendation to the governor -- this bypasses the people. Very left wing of the authors here in this matter. This smacks of an authoritarian tone that seems to be resonating on the liberal side do to the nature of politics these days. The fact that is there is a much more conservative trend in this country due to the recent elections that started with Scat Brown in Mass. in December 2009 through last week with Christine Odonell-- as well as Fiorina, Whitman and others -- have caused the Dems and their far left extremists to be very worried that their positions have alienated the country and the country is now looking to remove those that put these extreme policies in place. Those policies being Health care, Obama's Wall street bailout and the ever liberal loved "Cap and Trade" bill. The only thing I can say here to my liberal friends: November is coming, be very afraid!