Nonpartisan Michigan Voter Guide 06
Statewide Ballot Proposals 06-1 through 06-5How does a proposal get on the ballot?
Complete text of Michigan ballot proposals - November 2006 (16-page PDF) Note: this long document is NOT part of your ballot. The language that is on your ballot is provided below, with pro and con statements accompanying each proposal.
Proposal 06-1 (DNR Funds)
Proposal 06-2 (Affirmative Action)
Proposal 06-3 (Dove Hunting)
Proposal 06-4 (Eminent Domain)
Proposal 06-5 (Mandatory School Funding)
Official Ballot Language Proposal 06-1
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:
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.
Should this proposal be adopted? YES________ NO _______
Proposal 1 would establish the "Conservation and
Recreation Legacy Fund", the "Game and Fish Protection Trust
Fund" and the "Nongame Fish and Wildlife Trust Fund" within our
State Constitution. Voting
"Yes" will constitutionally protect boating, hunting, fishing,
snowmobile, ORV, state park and forest entry fees, and camping fees that you
pay from being raided to balance the state budget.
This is not a tax hike or fee increase, and will not change
any fees. This protects the funds
that you already pay into when you buy a license, pay DNR fees, or register your
snowmobile, ORV or boat.
Activities such as upkeep of boating and camping facilities, trail
development, wildlife management and habitat, conservation officers, and public
access sites are all supported by these funds and get no monies from the general
fund state budget.
Proposal 1 has broad, bi-partisan support. It passed the House and Senate
overwhelmingly and is supported by Michigan United Conservation Clubs, the
Michigan Boating Industries Association, the Sheriff's and Deputy Sheriff's
Association, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Lt. Gov. John Cherry, Secretary
of State Terri Lynn Land and many others.
Provided by:
Rep. Randy Richardville, Legislative sponsor of this proposal
Opponents of this proposal say that this proposal is simply
another attempt to earmark state revenue for special purposes and should not be
put in the state's Constitution.
The Legislature needs flexibility to respond to economic conditions-not
constitutional limitations that cannot be changed to meet current needs. This amendment will mean the
Legislature can not use these funds for any other purposes, no matter what the
other needs of the state might be.
By protecting these funds, this proposal will limit the Legislature and
the Governor's ability to use their judgment in determining the best way to
balance the state's budget and to spend tax dollars to best serve current and
future Michigan residents.
The language in this proposal is virtually the same as the
current statutory language restricting these funds so all this amendment will
accomplish is to make it more difficult and costly to change these restrictions
if that is needed in the future.
Official Ballot Language Proposal 06-2
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:
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.)
Should this proposal be adopted? YES________ NO _______
Michigan's economy is struggling badly, with working people
from all backgrounds finding their jobs in danger. As we rebuild the Michigan economy, it is crucial that every
person gets an equal chance to compete based on his/her merits. But, government
agencies at all levels in Michigan treat people differently, based on their
race and skin color - job quotas, "minority" contract set-asides, and
extra points in college admissions.
These practices are WRONG and it is time that we got rid of them.
The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative will restore fairness
in how people are treated by government.
This Initiative mirrors the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act and advances
civil rights by prohibiting discrimination and preferential treatment based on
race, sex and color.
Unfortunately, those who support race and gender preferences have waged
a negative campaign based on fear.
Much like the die-hard segregationists, they have chosen fear as their
tool.
EQUAL TREATMENT is the essence of "civil
rights." Proposal 2 will end
race and gender preferences and restore fairness in public employment, public
education and public contracting.
Proposal 2 will end dividing us by the color of our skin. Vote YES on
Proposal 2: It's the right thing
to do.
Provided by:
Michigan Civil Rights Initiative Campaign
Michigan this fall will decide whether it will continue to
have doors open to opportunity for women and people of color, or roll back the
progress we have made in addressing discrimination. Proposal 2 would amend our
state's constitution to immediately eliminate affirmative action policies in
state and local governments, banning use of the best tool we have in achieving
equal opportunity.
Opposing Proposal 2 are more than 200 groups joining as One
United Michigan, including business, labor, religious and civic organizations.
Governor Jennifer Granholm and Republican Dick DeVos both oppose the amendment.
Proposal 2 is just too extreme, rolling back the positive steps Michigan has
made in addressing inequities faced by women and people of color. The amendment would eliminate high
school programs that encourage girls and minorities to enter math and science
careers. It would ban housing and
lending programs to ensure women and minorities are treated fairly when buying
homes and applying for loans.
After a similar proposal passed in California, lawsuits were filed to
end state funding for battered women shelters and breast, prostate and cervical
cancer screenings.
Michigan should continue to move forward and not roll back
progress. Vote NO on Proposal 2.
Provided by:
One United Michigan
Official Ballot Language Proposal 06-3
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:
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.
Should this law be approved? YES________ NO _______
YES
Proposal 3 supports professional wildlife management.
Proposal 3 upholds a law passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor
in 2004 that designates the mourning dove a game bird and directs the Michigan
Natural Resources Commission to establish a hunting season based upon sound
scientific management.
Doves are the most abundant game bird in the US, currently
hunted in 40 states. Biologists
estimate that there are 475 million doves in this country. That is more than
all species of ducks, and geese in the US combined. Michigan's population is estimated to be six million. Doves nest several times each season
producing four young a year.
Doves' life expectancy is less than a year, with or without hunting.
Hunting accounts for less than 10 percent of the dove population's mortality
each year.
If Proposal 3 is passed, DNR biologist will establish a
season and bag limits based upon sound scientific management. All hunters will be required to
purchase a license and a dove stamp which will be used to further management of
the birds. Hunting will continue
to not be allowed near roads, houses or off power lines.
Provided by:
Citizens for Wildlife Conservation
VOTE NO ON PROPOSAL 3. Vote NO on Dove Shooting. There's NO good reason to shoot
mourning doves: Doves are NOT overpopulated. Doves are shot for target
practice, NOT for food. Doves are
NOT harmful to humans, property or crops.
There are 40 other game bird species in Michigan and there's NO reason
to add doves. It has been
Michigan's tradition to protect mourning doves since 1905, and there's NO
reason to change that now.
It's all about the doves. The Committee to Keep Doves
Protected has only one goal - to keep doves protected and restore Michigan's
100-year tradition of protecting mourning doves, Michigan's official bird of
peace.
The Committee respects Michigan's strong hunting heritage
and represent a broad-based grassroots coalition of agricultural, conservation,
humane, hunting, faith-based and community organizations and thousands of
Michigan citizens who want to continue the protection of the mourning dove as a
traditional backyard songbird.
VOTE NO ON DOVE SHOOTING. VOTE NO ON PROPOSAL 3!
Provided by:
The Committee to Keep Doves Protected
Official Ballot Language Proposal 06-4
A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT
GOVERNMENT FROM TAKING PRIVATE PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR CERTAIN PRIVATE
PURPOSES
The proposed
constitutional amendment would:
Preserve existing rights of property owners.
Should this proposal be adopted? YES________ NO _______
YES
Proposal 4 restores homeowners' rights by amending the
Michigan Constitution to prohibit local and state government from taking
someone's home or property under eminent domain and give it to an independent
third party when the only reason is the promise of increased economic
development or tax revenue.
Proposal 4 also requires any government that uses the power
of eminent domain to take a person's home to pay the property owner 125
percent. It requires a higher standard of proof to declare a property as
'blighted' and puts the burden of proof on government to show that a property
meets the definition of blight.
The U.S. Supreme Court said government may use its power of
eminent domain to force a property owner to sell his or her home so it can be
turned over a developer who wants to make a buck off of it. Only a change in the Michigan
Constitution will protect the rights of property owners, and make sure that
government cannot use eminent domain just to increase property tax revenues or
benefit a private developer. And
it will ensure that future legislatures or governors won't erode these property
rights. Vote YES on Proposal 4.
Provided by:
Sen. Tony Stamas, Legislative sponsor of this proposal
Opponents believe economic development is a proper role of
government. They say that the
state and other units of government should continue to have the power under
eminent domain to purchase private property and transfer it to a private
entity. There are already
limitations on this established by the Michigan Supreme Court in the case of
County of Wayne v. Hathcock and this is sufficient as a limitation on the uses
of eminent domain. This proposal will mean higher costs for taxpayers in order
for their government to use the powers of eminent domain and there will be lost
revenues from foregone projects.
Those voting NO believe that governments would no longer
have the ability to use the power of eminent domain in an area-wide approach to
blight eradication and that it would be harder and more expensive for
governments to attack blighted areas. This proposal could discourage
redevelopment in cities. Further,
it would be difficult to undo these limitations once they are put into the
state's Constitution, if these restrictions are found to be too costly or too
limiting in their scope.
Official Ballot Language Proposal 06-5
A LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE TO ESTABLISH MANDATORY SCHOOL
FUNDING LEVELS
The proposed law would:
Reduce funding gap between school districts receiving basic per-pupil foundation allowance and those receiving maximum foundation allowance.
Should this proposed law be approved? YES________ NO _______
YES
Properly funding public education is the economic key to
success for Michigan's future.
Proposal 5 is an education ballot initiative that requires the State of
Michigan to provide reasonable annual inflationary funding increases to local
public K-12 schools, intermediate school districts, community colleges and
higher education institutions.
Proposal 5 also requires the State to fund any deficiencies
in the School Aid Fund from the General Fund. Proposal 5 will help ease the burden of rising costs by
capping Retirement Fund contributions for public schools, community colleges
and universities. Additionally,
Proposal 5 reduces the funding gap between school districts receiving basic
per-pupil foundation allowances and those receiving the maximum foundation
allowance.
There is a funding crisis in education today. In school years 2001-2004, K-12 school
districts saw no increase in State Aid and Michigan's community colleges and
universities had budgets slashed 15%.
More than 50 local school districts in Michigan are approaching
bankruptcy. Michigan must invest
in public education by increasing teacher training, hiring additional
counselors, math and science teachers, reducing class sizes and reducing rising
college tuitions to help prepare more young people for the high-tech jobs of
the future. YES, Education
Proposal 5.
Provided by:
K-16 Coalition for Michigan's Future
Voters Should Fail "K-16" Spending Mandate. Proponents of the "K-16"
ballot proposal will tout the plan as "for education." The reality is
that the plan is not at all about "education." Rather it's about
funding teacher retirement at the expense of cuts to other critical government
services, and tax increases on individuals and working families. This plan mandates automatic increases
in school spending for Michigan's K-12 public schools, community colleges, and
state public universities, regardless of revenues available.
The Coalition to Stop the K-16 Spending Mandate-57 statewide
organizations, including law enforcement, fire fighters, health care providers,
social service organization, taxpayers, and local governments-believes this
plan is wrong for Michigan. The
cost of this proposal is extraordinary. The Senate Fiscal Agency estimates it
will cost at least $565 million more per year. This is on top of the recently
passed FY 2006/07 education budgets totaling approximately $400 million. The only way to pay for this proposal
is through cuts to other critical services or tax increases.
Despite 974 words of petition language, the proposal never
mentions student achievement or tuition restraint! It does detail a guarantee
for teacher retirement funding. In fact, 2/3 of the funding is earmarked for
retirement costs...quite obviously never intended "for the kids."
Provided by:
Coalition to Stop the K-16 Spending Mandate
