by: Grebner
Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 03:36:38 AM EDT
I received a call today from a friend in the media, who asked me what I knew about a petition that’s supposedly being circulated, to amend the state constitution and completely change the process by which legislative districts are drawn, among other things. I told him I didn’t have a clue.
From the text of the petition, which was provided to him by a Republican operative, it appears to be designed to be placed on the ballot this November, which means it would have to be circulated and turned in by July 7.
The slant is very clearly pro-Democratic, and includes a bizarre provision to eliminate two seats on the Supreme Court – and designates Bob Young and Steve Markman to be turned out of office.
I really have no clue what’s going on, but I bet some of our readers could enlighten us, if they choose to.
UPDATE, 6-12-08: MIRS reports that the MDP and Byrum-Fisk are pushing it.
Collecting the number of signatures required in such a short period will require paying a VERY high rate per name, and the margin needed to cover bad signatures and duplicates will push the total needed to 600,000+. If they don’t have the money, it’s all irrelevant. Do they?
The petition is headed, “A proposal to amend the Michigan Constitution…. If adopted this proposal will amend the Michigan constitution to rollback elected officials’ salaries; require disclosure of income and assets; streamline the state legislature by reducing the Senate from 38 to 28 members and the House from 110 to 82; limit elected officials’ retirement benefits to the same as state employees; cut two state departments and cap the number of boards and commissions; downsize Appelate Courts and add 10 local judges; make the Elections Division independent of partisanship and ban elected officials from campaigning in elections they oversee; allow no reason absentee voting; require post election audtis of procedures and mandate voting systems paper trail; establish a nonpartisan redistricting commission. …”
I’ve got a million questions, and only a few guesses at answers. First, is this serious? From the care that appears to have gone into the drafting, it certainly looks like it is. I’d guess the legal fees ran well into five figures – the entire proposal is about eight pages of fine print.
Second, is there a real plan to collect the signatures in the next 30 days? Here, I have no clue; maybe this is an idea that was explored and never implemented. But how it come into the hands of the Republicans? And are they correct in claiming it’s being actively circulated?
Third, is there a real chance of collecting the 380,000 valid signatures required? That’s a HUGE number – 60,000 more than the rightwingers needed in 2006 for their “Stop Over Spending” petition, which was eventually disqualifed even though they turned in 504,000 names. This petition, if it has similar numbers of invalid and duplicated names, would need to submit OVER 600,000 signatures – in less than 30 days. I can’t see how it could be done for less than $2 million – do they have a sponsor good for that much money? I can’t imagine it, but maybe that just shows I lack imagination.
Finally, if it makes the ballot, what would the voters do? That’s a very hard question. My guess – based solely on reading the petition – is that it would start with very strong public support, because it throws in every feel-good “reform” imaginable: cut officials’ salaries, reduce the size of various bodies, require higher ethical standards, and so on. But there would be a huge backlash, as the Republican Party reacts and circles its wagons. Eliminating Cliff Taylor’s allies may be a little too cute, and I’m sure there are lots of other buried nuggets which could be turned into public issues. I suppose I think it would be likely to pass, with a very strong partisan divide, and the independents tending to support it as causing “a pox on both your houses”.
If it’s all a hoax, it’s a well-drafted one.
[Edited with details poached from MIRS 6-11-08.]
Leave a Reply