PROPOSAL 1 – Term Limits and Financial Disclosure
Michigan has the strictest term limits in the nation. The state is also one of only two with no financial disclosure requirements for elected officials. Voters For Transparency and Term Limits is the group that drafted this proposal, which passed after modifications by a bipartisan legislature.
Legislators can currently serve up to six years in the House, with three two-year terms, and eight years in the Senate in two four-year terms. That’s a 14-year lifetime limit. This proposal instead would allow for a single, 12-year limit in either chamber.
If this proposal passes the legislature will need to pass a law by 2024 to specify the details for disclosure. Legislators and the state’s executive branch officeholders must still publicly disclose their assets, sources of income, liabilities, positions held in companies and certain business arrangements, regardless of the law the legislature passes. The two most common ways lawmakers received unreported benefits while in office are: lobbyist-paid travel that evades disclosure laws and dark money nonprofit “administrative” accounts. These issues are NOT addressed in the current language of Proposal 1. The proposal limits required reporting of gifted travel to what has to be disclosed under Michigan’s current lobbying law — and only if from registered lobbyists.
- Proponents: The proposal will enable lawmakers to make effective legislative changes
- Opponents: The proposal will allow for more ‘career politicians’
- Unknown: The effectiveness of the disclosure depends on the law written by the legislature
PROPOSAL 2 – Add election requirements to the state constitution
Promote the Vote 2022 is group behind this proposal.
- Recognize fundamental right to vote without harassing conduct
- Require military or overseas ballots be counted if postmarked by election day
- Provide voter right to verify identity with photo IS or signed statement
- Provide voter right to single application to vote absentee in all elections
- Require state-funded absentee ballot drop boxes and postage for absentee application and ballots
- Provide that only election officials may conduct post-election audits
- Require nine days of early in-person voting
- Allow donations to fund elections, which must be disclosed
- Require canvass boards certify election results based only on the official records of votes cast
- Supporters say the changes would allow voters more flexibility and make the process more accessible
- Opponents are concerned the measure could compromise election security
Voting “yes” would amend Michigan’s constitution to allow nine days of early in-person voting, add an absentee-ballot box in every city and township and allow clerks to accept outside donations to fund their elections. Voting “no” would curb the proposed changes and keep current election procedures, thus continuing to allow the Legislature to pass bills to change these policies in the future.
Should the proposal pass, several voting and election policies would be added to the Michigan Constitution. Some of these policies would be new, such as early voting. Others exist as state statute and would be codified as constitutional law, such as the state’s requirement that voters show identification or sign an affidavit to vote in person.
As provisions of the Michigan Constitution, legislators would NOT be able to repeal or amend these policies without first passing a constitutional amendment, which would require voter approval. Also see Measure design to gain additional information on the changes to the Constitution.
Passage of this proposal will NOT waive the photo ID requirement or allow prisoners to vote
Reproductive Freedom For All is the group behind this proposal.
If the proposal passed broad new ‘reproductive freedom’ rights would be written into the Michigan Constitution.
- Opponents argue it would also invalidate other abortion regulations
- Proponents argue that women should have the right to choose
A “yes” vote would write a broad new right to “reproductive freedom” into the Michigan Constitution, invaliding a 1931 abortion ban and potentially other existing regulations. A “no” vote would leave abortion access up to elected officials in Lansing or judges, who have so far suspended enforcement of the state’s 91-year-old ban under rulings that abortion opponents are appealing to higher courts.
Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade this summer, the legality of abortion has been up to each individual state. Some, like Ohio, Indiana and Wisconsin, have trigger restrictions either in effect or being argued in court. Other states, like Illinois and Minnesota, already had protections in place.