This information is designed to familiarize you with the pros and cons of these proposals. Included is the actual language that will appear on the ballot along with analyses of the pertinent issues at hand. The analyses presented were prepared with bipartisan cooperation and do not necessarily reflect my views. The intent is to bring you the strongest arguments for and against each proposal so you can make an informed decision on these issues. I hope that you find this information to be of value.
PROPOSAL 1
A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE THAT MONEY HELD IN CONSERVATION AND RECREATION FUNDS CAN ONLY BE USED FOR THEIR INTENDED PURPOSES
The proposed constitutional amendment would:
- Create a Conservation and Recreation Legacy Fund within the Constitution and establish existing conservation and recreation accounts as components of the fund.
- Use current funding sources such as state park entrance and camping fees; snowmobile, ORV and boating registration fees; hunting and fishing license fees; taxes and other revenues to fund accounts.
- Establish the current Game and Fish Protection Fund and the Nongame Fish and Wildlife Fund within the Constitution.
- Provide that money held in Funds can only be used for specific purposes related to conservation and recreation and cannot be used for any purpose other than those intended.
People voting YES on this amendment argue that:
- These funds are typically comprised of licenses or other fees paid by those hunting, fishing and utilizing our outdoor resources. In the past, these funds have been raided and used for purposes other than those intended by the people paying these fees. This money must be protected constitutionally so it is not redirected for other purposes as the state budget gets tighter.
People voting NO on this amendment argue that:
- The outdoor resources of this state are owned by all people and all people benefit from the state budget. This proposal ties the hands of our governor and Legislature to respond to budgetary troubles by further restricting how the money can be used. Uses of these funds in the past may have helped to stave off budget cuts that might have otherwise decimated state programs or resulted in broad-based tax or fee increases.
PROPOSAL 2
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO BAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS THAT GIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS BASED ON THEIR RACE, GENDER, COLOR, ETHNICITY OR NATIONAL ORIGIN FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION OR CONTRACTING PURPOSES
The proposed constitutional amendment would:
- Ban public institutions from using affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes. Public institutions affected by the proposal include state government, local governments, public colleges and universities, community colleges and school districts.
- Prohibit public institutions from discriminating against groups or individuals due to their gender, ethnicity, race, color or national origin. (A separate provision of the state constitution already prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin.)
People voting YES on this amendment argue that:
- State institutions should not be allowed to apply different standards to individuals or groups based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in their admission and hiring processes.
People voting NO on this amendment argue that:
- State institutions should be allowed to use race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in their admission and hiring processes, because increasing minority opportunities may necessitate consideration of minority status when choosing between otherwise equally qualified candidates.
PROPOSAL 3
A REFERENDUM ON PUBLIC ACT 160 OF 2004 – AN ACT TO ALLOW THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A HUNTING SEASON FOR MOURNING DOVES
Public Act 160 of 2004 would:
- Authorize the Natural Resources Commission to establish a hunting season for mourning doves.
- Require a mourning dove hunter to have a small game license and a $2.00 mourning dove stamp.
- Stipulate that revenue from the stamp must be split evenly between the Game and Fish Protection Fund and the Fish and Wildlife Trust Fund.
- Require the Department of Natural Resources to address responsible mourning dove hunting; management practices for the propagation of mourning doves; and participation in mourning dove hunting by youth, the elderly and the disabled in the Department's annual hunting guide.
People voting YES on this law argue that:
- Hunting is part of Michigan's outdoor heritage and should be preserved and expanded.
- Studies have shown that the hunting of mourning doves does not diminish their population.
- There is no biological or scientific reason not to have a dove hunting season.
- Forty other states provide hunting seasons for mourning doves and Michigan stands to lose revenue generated by these hunters if the same opportunity is not presented in Michigan.
People voting NO on this law argue that:
- Mourning doves have been continuously protected in Michigan for 100 years; they should not be shot for target practice.
- Hunting doves is unnecessary and serves no wildlife management purpose.
- Mourning doves have significant economic value as live songbirds.
- Doves are not a viable human food source.
- Dove shooting will contribute to the discharge of enormous amounts of toxic lead shot in the environment.
PROPOSAL 4
A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT GOVERNMENT FROM TAKING PRIVATE PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR CERTAIN PRIVATE PURPOSES
The proposed constitutional amendment would:
- Prohibit government from taking private property for transfer to another private individual or business for purposes of economic development or increasing tax revenue.
- Provide that if an individual's principal residence is taken by government for public use, the individual must be paid at least 125% of property's fair market value.
- Require government that takes a private property to demonstrate that the taking is for a public use; if taken to eliminate blight, require a higher standard of proof to demonstrate that the taking of that property is for a public use.
- Preserve existing rights of property owners.
People voting YES on this amendment argue that:
- This protects private property rights by prohibiting the government from taking private property for purpose of transferring the property to another private individual or business in order to increase tax revenue.
- When someone's residence is taken, they are entitled to be compensated at a rate of 125% of the property's fair market value. Some local units of government are abusing their powers of eminent domain, and this proposal is necessary to protect homeowners.
- Only properties that meet the blight standards constitute a blighted property. Therefore properties cannot be blighted for purposes of transfer to a private entity.
People voting NO on this amendment argue that:
- This provides excessive compensation to owners of residential properties. Sometimes local units of government need to resell unused, condemned parcels of property for private development.
PROPOSAL 5
A LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE TO ESTABLISH MANDATORY SCHOOL FUNDING LEVELS
The proposed law would:
- Increase current funding by approximately $565 million and require State to provide annual funding increases equal to the rate of inflation for public schools, intermediate school districts, community colleges and higher education (includes state universities and financial aid/grant programs).
- Require State to fund any deficiencies from General Fund.
- Base funding for school districts with a declining enrollment on three-year student enrollment average.
- Reduce and cap retirement fund contribution paid by public schools, community colleges and state universities; shift remaining portion to state.
- Reduce funding gap between school districts receiving basic per-pupil foundation allowance and those receiving maximum foundation allowance.
People voting YES on this law argue that:
- Education funding in recent years has not kept pace with the rate of inflation. In some years, cuts had
occurred; in others, increases were not enough to keep pace with rising operating costs, forcing layoffs and cutbacks in
many areas. Further cutbacks could result in the decrease of the quality of educational
programs. - Education funding should be the state's top funding priority, and the initiative would ensure that education funding always at least keeps up with the rate of inflation.
- The gap between the state's highest- and lowest-funded districts should be narrowed and, eventually, eliminated.
People voting NO on this law argue that:
- Michigan's public education is very well funded and growing. Since Proposal A's enactment, funding for public education has grown well beyond the rate of inflation, and the gap between the highest- and lowest-funded districts has been narrowed.
- The proposal's costs will likely result in tax increases, or cuts to other essential state and local services—like police and fire protection.
- The proposal does not deal with how to increase student achievement. It also does not work to keep operating and health care costs under control.
- Another state with a similar education funding mandate—Colorado—has experienced a budget crisis, partially as a result of the mandate (and its interaction with state spending limits).