Michigan ballot proposals

On November 6, Michigan voters will be asked to cast their vote on six general election proposals. This post provides for each proposal:

1) the exact language that will appear on the ballot;

2) who filed the petition to add the proposal to the ballot;

3) the direct campaign financing information (through July 20, 2012); and

4) the results of a September 2012 statewide poll of active and likely voters.

The Michigan Secretary of State makes the ballot proposal language available online: http://michigan.gov/documents/sos/2012_Statewide_Proposal_Language_all_with_links_398756_7.pdf

The Michigan Secretary of State also makes the petition information available online: http://michigan.gov/documents/sos/Bal_Prop_Status_2011_2_346859_7.pdf

Proposal 1:A REFERENDUM ON PUBLIC ACT 4 OF 2011 – THE EMERGENCY MANAGER LAW

Public Act 4 of 2011 would:

•Establish criteria to assess the financial condition of local government units, including school districts.
• Authorize Governor to appoint an emergency manager (EM) upon state finding of a financial emergency, and allow the EM to act in place of local government officials.
•Require EM to develop financial and operating plans, which may include modification or termination of contracts, reorganization of government, and determination of expenditures, services, and use of assets until the emergency is resolved.
•Alternatively, authorize state-appointed review team to enter into a local government approved consent decree.

Should this law be approved? o YES   o NO

PETITION FILED BY:Stand up for Democracy

  • 100% of the the direct campaign finance contributions for Proposal 1 is provided by Michigan AFSCME Local 25

Proposal 2: A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION REGARDING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

This proposal would:

·  Grant public and private employees the constitutional right to organize and bargain collectively   through labor unions.

·  Invalidate existing or future state or local laws that limit the ability to join unions and bargain   collectively, and to negotiate and enforce collective bargaining agreements, including employees’   financial support of their labor unions. Laws may be enacted to prohibit public employees from striking.

·  Override state laws that regulate hours and conditions of employment to the extent that those laws conflict with collective bargaining agreements.

·  Define “employer” as a person or entity employing one or more employees.

Should this proposal be approved? o YES   o NO

PETITION FILED BY: Protect our Jobs

NO CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS LISTED

Proposal 3: A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO ESTABLISH A STANDARD FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY

This proposal would:

·  Require electric utilities to provide at least 25% of their annual retail sales of electricity from renewable energy sources, which are wind, solar, biomass, and hydropower, by 2025.

·  Limit to not more than 1% per year electric utility rate increases charged to consumers only to achieve compliance with the renewable energy standard.

·  Allow annual extensions of the deadline to meet the 25% standard in order to prevent rate increases over the 1% limit.

·  Require the legislature to enact additional laws to encourage the use of Michigan made equipment and employment of Michigan residents.

Should this proposal be approved? o YES   o NO

PETITION FILED BY: Michigan Energy, Michigan Jobs

Proposal 4:A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION
TO ESTABLISH THE MICHIGAN QUALITY HOME CARE COUNCIL AND PROVIDE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
FOR IN-HOME CARE WORKERS

This proposal would:

·  Allow in-home care workers to bargain collectively with the Michigan Quality Home Care Council (MQHCC). Continue the current exclusive representative of in-home care workers until modified in accordance with labor laws.

·  Require MQHCC to provide training for in-home care workers, create a registry of workers who pass background checks, and provide financial services to patients to manage the cost of in-home care.

·  Preserve patients’ rights to hire in-home care workers who are not referred from the MQHCC registry who are bargaining unit members.

·  Authorize the MQHCC to set minimum compensation standards and terms and conditions of employment.

Should this proposal be approved? o YES   o NO

PETITION FILED BY: Citizens for Affordable Quality Home Care

  • 100% of the the direct campaign finance contributions for Proposal 4 is provided by Home Care First Inc.

Proposal 5:A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION
TO LIMIT THE ENACTMENT OF NEW TAXES BY STATE GOVERNMENT

This proposal would:

·  Require a 2/3 majority vote of the State House and the State Senate, or a statewide vote of the people at a November election, in order for the State of Michigan to impose new or additional taxes on taxpayers or expand the base of taxation or increasing the rate of taxation.

·  This section shall in no way be construed to limit or modify tax limitations otherwise created in this Constitution.

Should this proposal be approved? o YES   o NO

PETITION FILED BY: Michigan Alliance for Prosperity

Proposal 6:A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF INTERNATIONAL BRIDGES AND TUNNELS

This proposal would:

·  Require the approval of a majority of voters at a statewide election and in each municipality where “new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles” are to be located before the State of Michigan may expend state funds or resources for acquiring land, designing, soliciting bids for, constructing, financing, or promoting new international bridges or tunnels.

·  Create a definition of “new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles” that means, “any bridge or tunnel which is not open to the public and serving traffic as of January 1, 2012.”

Should this proposal be approved? o YES   o NO

PETITION FILED BY: The People Should Decide

  • 100% ($465,700,500) of the the direct campaign finance contributions for Proposal 6 is provided by DBIC Inc., which is Michigan billionaire and Ambassador Bridge Owner Matty Moroun’s company.

The  chart below reflects the total amount of direct campaign contributions for each proposal as of July 20, 2012.
Advertisements

One Response to “Michigan ballot proposals”

  1. Ronald Milliron Says:

    I sent the following to the “Building Tradesman” (newspaper) in response to their endorsement of proposition 4. My comments and observations are based on first hand experience with the SEIU in connection with this issue and ACTUALLY READING the proposal language, not just the ballot language:

    I have read the latest edition of The Building Tradesman. Your endorsement of ballot proposal #4 is deeply troubling. The TV ads and your endorsement both characterize proposal 4 as an initiative that will guarantee collective bargaining for “home health care workers”. What your endorsement analysis fails to note is that proposal 4 does no such thing. Home health care workers ACTUALLY EMPLOYED by a company providing such services already have this right. Some of the supporting ads also indicate that this proposition will somehow affect th
    e bargaining rights of nurses. This assertion is also fraudulent.
    Having read the actual language of the proposal, I am aware that it adds only one sentence to existing law and will have only one major effect, it will define all “home health care workers not previously classified as employees”, as employees subject to this measure and bring those “workers” under the sway of the SEIU as union members.

    Home health care workers “not previously defined as employees”, are in fact the approximately 53000 individuals in this state that receive Federal Medicaid assistance, under a 1981 law, to care for handicapped family members in their own homes. These individuals are not employees in any sense of the word. The SEIU can not negotiate wage rates or working conditions for these people. They are, similarly in no position to provide the supposed training they claim they will provide nor are background checks, which by the way can be done on legitimate home health care workers without this proposal, either necessary or possible. The vaunted home health care worker registry, is completely irrelevant to the handicapped family members these people care for. The idea that these handicapped individuals will consult any such registry and select a care giver from that list is completely absurd and the inclusion of their care givers on any such list serves no legitimate purpose. This proposed law is a complete sham in its publicized intent and is one of the slimiest union power grabs I have been witness to in my 38 years as a union member. If this proposal passes, legitimate employees working in the home health care field will not be affected in ANY way while 53000 individuals who are NOT employees will be assessed union dues or union fees of some sort and receive absolutely nothing in return. The only party that will benefit from the passage of this proposal is the SEIU which will be allowed to continue to collect dues based on their fraudulent assertion that they somehow can or will provide representation and support for these individuals.

    This is an attempt by the SEIU to re-establish the practice of taking dues from non-employee care givers that has been discredited and stopped by the State of Michigan. Your support of this initiative is unworthy of an honest union organization as it victimizes a large class of individuals rather than providing a vehicle for the improvement of their situation. I sincerely hope that you will actually read the full language of the proposal, come to understand its true impact and recant your support for proposal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: