LANSING, MI – There’s a lot more on the ballot this year than the presidential election — or even any race among candidates.
For years, Michigan ballots often have been loaded with various referenda on proposed laws or constitutional amendments. Sometimes this is because determined groups have collected signatures in an attempt to get voters to approve what lawmakers will not. Sometimes it is because lawmakers want to pass the buck and let the people decide controversial questions.
That has often meant voters face as many as six complex proposals (which in itself may be a strong argument for getting an absentee ballot that can be studied at leisure.)
This year, however, Michigan voters are in luck. There are only two statewide proposals, both state constitutional amendments.
Both were put on the ballot by the legislature, and while each is important, they have received next to no publicity, possibly because COVID-19 and the intense presidential and senatorial campaigns have essentially drowned out anything else this year.
So here’s a look at the two proposals every Michigan voter is facing:
Proposal One is, by far, the more controversial and complex of the two. Michigan’s state parks and incredible scenery have long been among the state’s greatest assets. Long ago, the state set up two funds to help maintain and preserve them. The Michigan State Parks Endowment Fund receives money from oil and gas revenue from state-owned land, and is to continue to do so till the fund reaches an $800 million cap, probably in the early 2050s.
Once the cap is reached, those revenues will go into the state’s general fund for use as lawmakers see fit.
The other fund, the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund, reached its cap of $500 million nine years ago.
Proposal One would change the law so that when the parks fund limit is reached, future oil and gas revenues would go, not to the general fund, but the Natural Resources Trust Fund, which would no longer have any cap whatsoever. Additionally, while the principal in both funds could not be touched, the interest and earnings from the funds would also have to be spent in certain ways. For example, a fifth of the parks fund revenue would have to be spent on capital improvements, and at least a quarter of the natural resources fund revenue would be used to develop public recreational facilities.
Most environmental organizations, from the Nature Conservancy to the Michigan League of Conservation Voters, are strongly in favor of Proposal One. The Sierra Club, however, is opposed. In a statement, the group said “if we are to mitigate climate change … we cannot continue to rely on oil and gas royalties as a funding source, when we urgently need to end our reliance on them.”
The group also objects to a provision that would shift the natural resources fund’s priorities to maintaining facilities rather than acquiring more land. Craig Thiel, the research director for the highly respected Citizens’ Research Council, has a different reservation; he wonders, “given a host of unknowns that could change state finances and budget priorities between now and 2050,” if it makes sense for voters to tie the hands of future lawmakers.
Proposal Two is less controversial. It would give our email and other electronic data the same protections from unreasonable and unauthorized search and seizure that other property has.
In other words, it would require law enforcement officials to get search warrants in order to access your electronic information. While some argue that such information is already protected, and many police agencies have sought search warrants before going after a suspect’s cell phone, this doesn’t always happen.
A Citizens’ Research Council analysis thinks the amendment is valuable and needed: “The characteristics of electronic property are nuanced, complex, and ever-changing with technological advancements,” it concluded. “While Proposal Two might not be seriously impactful at this current point in time, it could become more influential in the future,” he concluded.
The proposal has broad bipartisan and editorial support, and has drawn no organized opposition. While there has been some concern expressed that it might make it harder for police to do their job, others have said it might actually help law enforcement agencies by making it clear what a legal search means.
Will these proposals pass? That might seem likely – except for two things. Many voters, faced with a long complex ballot with dozens of races, may skip these proposals.
Past elections have shown that other voters, faced with proposals they don’t know about or find hard to understand, tend to vote no, believing no change is a safer option.
Whether that will happen this year remains to be seen.
-30
(Editor’s Note: A version of this column appeared in the Toledo Blade.)
