In last Sunday's Free Press, it was noted that this year's three constitutional amendment
ballot proposals all may go down to defeat, in part due to an overall "no" mood among the
voters. A statewide public opinion poll conducted recently showed less than 50% support for
all three proposals. The proposals include a proposal to protect collective bargaining
rights, one to retain the Emergency Financial Management law (PA 4), and one to require
public approval for international bridge projects.
Ballot proposals can be tricky. Over the years, I can remember a number of proposals that
were intentionally worded so that a voter who had a "yes" position had to vote "no" on the
ballot. This seems to be the case with the bridge project, although I think voters have
figured that one out. The proposal has been backed by Matty Moroun, owner of the Ambassador
bridge, who doesn't want any competition. In the past year, Governor Snyder has advocated
for a second bridge, but the Moroun family worked the legislature enough to stop that
project so far. A Yes vote would require that any international bridge project would first
need to be approved by the voters, making it more difficult for the bridge to be built.
I've discussed the Emergency Financial Management law in a previous blog. I still think
that the proposal to retain the law will pass, but according to the Freep article, the
overall "no" mood among voters so far on the proposals in general might keep it from
passing. Even if it doesn't pass, an earlier EFM law (now currently in effect pending the
outcome of this vote in November) would be the operating statute on these matters.
The collective bargaining proposal also is not generating enough support to pass, at least
so far. I'm guessing that there is an anti-labor union mood among many voters, who might
blame labor unions for our current economic woes. Supporters of the proposal are seeking
some constitutional protection against initiatives such as the one in Wisconsin. Of
course, Wisconsin Gov. Walker was subject to a recall election (which he won), and a state
judge recently threw out major parts of the law. This will end up in the Wisconsin Supreme
Court soon, in an effort to clarify what is permissible and what is not.
Voters like to simplify their lives -- and so they often adopt short-cuts that help them
uncomplicate their voting decisions. One way is to use party affiliation to select a
candidate. Another way is to vote "No" on all three ballot proposals, regardless of the
individual merits of the proposals. In my own view, a "no" vote on the bridge proposal
makes sense -- we need another bridge to help our economy (with few costs to state
taxpayers), and a decision on the project can be handled by our lawmakers without a prior
voter approval requirement.
The other proposals would seem to be more overtly partisan, or have been presented and
debated using a partisan lens. All of the proposals would be defeated if the vote was
today, but it's very close, and we still have about seven weeks left until Election Day.
John Klemanski
ballot proposals all may go down to defeat, in part due to an overall "no" mood among the
voters. A statewide public opinion poll conducted recently showed less than 50% support for
all three proposals. The proposals include a proposal to protect collective bargaining
rights, one to retain the Emergency Financial Management law (PA 4), and one to require
public approval for international bridge projects.
Ballot proposals can be tricky. Over the years, I can remember a number of proposals that
were intentionally worded so that a voter who had a "yes" position had to vote "no" on the
ballot. This seems to be the case with the bridge project, although I think voters have
figured that one out. The proposal has been backed by Matty Moroun, owner of the Ambassador
bridge, who doesn't want any competition. In the past year, Governor Snyder has advocated
for a second bridge, but the Moroun family worked the legislature enough to stop that
project so far. A Yes vote would require that any international bridge project would first
need to be approved by the voters, making it more difficult for the bridge to be built.
I've discussed the Emergency Financial Management law in a previous blog. I still think
that the proposal to retain the law will pass, but according to the Freep article, the
overall "no" mood among voters so far on the proposals in general might keep it from
passing. Even if it doesn't pass, an earlier EFM law (now currently in effect pending the
outcome of this vote in November) would be the operating statute on these matters.
The collective bargaining proposal also is not generating enough support to pass, at least
so far. I'm guessing that there is an anti-labor union mood among many voters, who might
blame labor unions for our current economic woes. Supporters of the proposal are seeking
some constitutional protection against initiatives such as the one in Wisconsin. Of
course, Wisconsin Gov. Walker was subject to a recall election (which he won), and a state
judge recently threw out major parts of the law. This will end up in the Wisconsin Supreme
Court soon, in an effort to clarify what is permissible and what is not.
Voters like to simplify their lives -- and so they often adopt short-cuts that help them
uncomplicate their voting decisions. One way is to use party affiliation to select a
candidate. Another way is to vote "No" on all three ballot proposals, regardless of the
individual merits of the proposals. In my own view, a "no" vote on the bridge proposal
makes sense -- we need another bridge to help our economy (with few costs to state
taxpayers), and a decision on the project can be handled by our lawmakers without a prior
voter approval requirement.
The other proposals would seem to be more overtly partisan, or have been presented and
debated using a partisan lens. All of the proposals would be defeated if the vote was
today, but it's very close, and we still have about seven weeks left until Election Day.
John Klemanski
RSS Feed