What's a Con-Con? Michigan voters will decide if they want to rewrite the constitution in 2026.
A Michigan flag waves in the state Capitol plaza | Susan J. Demas
For the fourth time since Michigan's 1963 constitution went into effect, voters will decide next year whether to hold a convention to overhaul the document.
The initiative to hold a state constitutional convention — informally known as a 'Con-Con' — has automatically appeared on the state's ballot every 16 years beginning in 1978 and is enshrined in the Michigan Constitution's Article XII, Section 3.
Michigan is among just 14 states that have an automatic constitutional convention provision that does not require a legislative vote to be placed in the ballot.
Over the course of its history as a state, Michigan has had four constitutions. The original document was adopted in 1835, followed by reboots in 1850 and 1908, and finally, a constitution approved in 1963, which is still in effect today.
On this day in 1835: Michigan leader calls a constitutional convention
By the time the question of whether a convention should be held appears on the ballot in November 2026, Michigan will have gone 66 years without calling a constitutional convention, the longest period in its history without doing so.
The three previous times it appeared before Michigan voters under the current Constitution — in 1978, 1994 and 2010 — it was defeated by strong majorities ranging from between more than 2-1 to 3-1 against.
Eric Lupher, president of the nonpartisan Citizens Research Council (CRC) of Michigan, told the Michigan Advance that the idea to make the option for a convention a regular feature came from the Con-Con that produced the 1963 constitution.
'They said, 'Well, let's just be proactive about saying we're going to ask you on a regular basis.' If you feel like things are working well and if you say no, we just go on with life as normal. But if not, then we dig into a process,' said Lupher.
If a request for a convention was approved in November 2026, a special primary and then general election for delegates would have to be held, with one delegate elected on a partisan ballot in each of the 110 state House and 38 state Senate districts.
The convention would then convene in October 2027, with no limit on how long it would last, although for comparison the convention that produced the current constitution began in October 1961 and lasted for 10 months before adopting a proposed constitution on August 1, 1962.
State voters then approved that document in April 1963.
Lupher says there are arguments to be made for and against approving a constitutional convention, although it should be seen as the complete overhaul that it represents.
'Unlike the questions that we get asked from time to time as an initiative state when somebody circulates petitions and says, 'Should we amend the Constitution in this way?' — with a constitutional convention, everything is fair game, from Article One through Article 12, so it's not a piecemeal approach. It is an open document that will be examined from A-to-Z,' he said.
Many people will have some trepidation that opening up the Michigan Constitution could take away abortion rights protections or redistricting provisions that were recently added through the amendment process, Lupher said, while others may see it as an opportunity to reform education funding or the tax structure.
'People have their pet issues that are important to them and not knowing who would get elected [to the convention] and what a majority would look like, there's a reason to hope for and dread what might come,' he said.
Bob LaBrant is a longtime GOP strategist who served in various capacities with the Michigan Chamber of Commerce until his retirement in 2012. In that time, he helped lead coalitions opposing the three previous attempts to convene a constitutional convention, saying both he and the chamber felt they weren't warranted.
While he wrote a commentary in 2021 for Crain's Detroit saying he was open to the idea as we approached 2026, he told the Michigan Advance last week in an interview that now he's not so sure.
'There are a number of things that need to be changed in the [state] constitution; I don't debate that. But you know, given the MAGA movement [led by President Donald Trump], I'm sure if they were to have a majority we'd be debating things like death penalties,' he said.
Michigan's legislature abolished the death penalty in 1847 and the 1963 Constitution specifically prohibits it.
LaBrant said he worries that given the nation's extreme political polarization, opening up the state's constitution might do more harm than good, with other contentious issues such as abortion again coming up for debate, despite most Michigan residents clearly deciding they favor its legalization.
He also notes that constitutional convention delegates would be earning the same pay as legislators for the districts they represent, which is $71,685 per year, with no limit on how long the convention would convene.
'There's no date to cut off the constitutional convention. The constitutional convention sets its own rules,' said Labrant. 'If they decide that this is going to be a four-year exercise instead of a two-year exercise or even longer, I think they probably could.'
While it is true there's not a defined amount of time, Lupher said the delegates would be asked to step aside from their daily life to complete the task.
'So, they wouldn't want that to go on for a long time,' he said. 'When they come up with a new draft document, then it would go through the process of them trying to sell it to the voters, to say, 'This is why we think it's better than our current document.' Under the best of circumstances, it's a multi-year process. It could stretch even longer, but I don't think that's in their best interest to stretch it too far.'
Lupher said the CRC will be rolling out a full set of analyses on the constitutional convention question starting early next year.
'Our plan is to start our research this spring, meeting with some constitutional scholars and in different interests to understand different perspectives and then we will start putting pen to paper and as we did in 2010, and as we did in 1994, releasing the papers over time instead of one grand volume that will be hard to digest,' he said.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Is Using the National Guard as Bait
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. President Donald Trump is about to launch yet another assault on democracy, the Constitution, and American traditions of civil-military relations, this time in Los Angeles. Under a dubious legal rationale, he is activating 2,000 members of the National Guard to confront protests against actions by ICE, the immigration police who have used thuggish tactics against citizens and foreigners alike in the United States. By militarizing the situation in L.A., Trump is goading Americans more generally to take him on in the streets of their own cities, thus enabling his attacks on their constitutional freedoms. As I've listened to him and his advisers over the past several days, they seem almost eager for public violence that would justify the use of armed force against Americans. The president and the men and women around him are acting with great ambition in this moment, and they are likely hoping to achieve three goals in one dramatic action. First, they will turn America's attention away from Trump's many failures and inane feuds, and reestablish his campaign persona as a strongman who will brush aside the law if that's what it takes to keep order in the streets. Perhaps nothing would please Trump more than to replace weird stories about Elon Musk with video of masked protesters burning cars as lines of helmeted police and soldiers march over them and impose draconian silence in one of the nation's largest and most diverse cities. Second, as my colleague David Frum warned this morning, Trump is establishing that he is willing to use the military any way he pleases, perhaps as a proof of concept for suppressing free elections in 2026 or 2028. Trump sees the U.S. military as his personal honor guard and his private muscle. Those are his toy soldiers, and he's going to get a show from his honor guard in a birthday parade next weekend. In the meantime, he's going to flex that muscle, and prove that the officers and service members who will do whatever he orders are the real military. The rest are suckers and losers. During the George Floyd protests in 2020, Trump was furious at what he saw as the fecklessness of military leaders determined to thwart his attempts to use deadly force against protesters. He's learned his lesson: This time, he has installed a hapless sycophant at the Pentagon who is itching to execute the boss's orders. Third, Trump may be hoping to radicalize the citizen-soldiers drawn from the community who serve in the National Guard. (Seizing the California Guard is also a convenient way to humiliate California Governor Gavin Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, with the president's often-used narrative that liberals can't control their own cities.) Trump has the right to 'federalize' Guard forces, which is how they were deployed overseas in America's various conflicts. He has never respected the traditions of American civil-military relations, which regard the domestic deployment of the military as an extreme measure to be avoided whenever possible. Using the Guard could be a devious tactic: He may be hoping to set neighbor against neighbor, so that the people called to duty return to their home and workplace with stories of violence and injuries. In the longer run, Trump may be trying to create a national emergency that will enable him to exercise authoritarian control. (Such an emergency was a rationalization, for example, for the tariffs that he has mostly had to abandon.) He has for years been trying to desensitize the citizens of the United States to un-American ideas and unconstitutional actions. The American system of government was never meant to cope with a rogue president. Yet Trump is not unstoppable. Thwarting his authoritarianism will require restraint on the part of the public, some steely nerves on the part of state and local authorities, and vigilant action from national elected representatives, who should be stepping in to raise the alarm and to demand explanations about the president's misuse of the military. As unsatisfying as it may be for some citizens to hear, the last thing anyone should do is take to the streets of Los Angeles and try to confront the military or any of California's law-enforcement authorities. ICE is on a rampage, but physically assaulting or obstructing its agents—and thus causing a confrontation with the cops who have to protect them, whether those police officers like it or not—will provide precisely the pretext that some of the people in Trump's White House are trying to create. The president and his coterie want people walking around taking selfies in gas clouds, waving Mexican flags, holding up traffic, and burning cars. Judging by reactions on social media and interviews on television, a lot of people seem to think such performances are heroic—which means they're poised to give Trump's enforcers what they're hoping for. Be warned: Trump is expecting resistance. You will not be heroes. You will be the pretext. [Conor Friedersdorf: Averting the worst-case scenario in Los Angeles] Instead, the most dramatic public action the residents of Southern California could take right now would be to ensure that Trump's forces arrive on calm streets. Imagine the reactions of the Guard members as they look around and wonder what, exactly, the commander in chief was thinking. Why are they carrying their rifles in the streets of downtown America? What does anyone expect them to do? Put another way: What if the president throws a crackdown and nobody comes? This kind of restraint will deny Trump the political oxygen he's trying to generate. He is resorting to the grand theater of militarism because he is losing on multiple fronts in the courts—and he knows it. The law, for most people, is dreary to hear about, but one of the most important stories of Trump's second term is that lawyers and judges are so far holding a vital line against the administration, sometimes at great personal risk. Trump is also losing public support, which is another reason he's zeroing in on California. He is resolutely ignorant in many ways, but he has an excellent instinct for picking the right fights. The fact of the matter is that tens of millions of Americans believe that almost everything about immigration in the United States has long been deeply dysfunctional. (I'm one of them.) If he sends the military into L.A. and Guard members end up clashing in high-definition video with wannabe resistance gladiators in balaclavas, many people who have not been paying attention to his other ghastly antics will support him. (For the record, I am not one of them.) So far, even the Los Angeles Police Department—not exactly a bastion of squishy suburban book-club liberals—has emphasized that the protests have been mostly peaceful. Trump is apparently trying to change that. Sending in the National Guard is meant to provoke, not pacify, and his power will only grow if he succeeds in tempting Americans to intemperate reactions that give him the authoritarian opening he's seeking. Article originally published at The Atlantic


New York Post
19 minutes ago
- New York Post
Progressive states that care not for laws or the border are the ones tearing us apart
The whole nation has been watching the anti-ICE 'protests' playing out on television, and I cannot help but be struck by the multiplicity of ironies. Once upon a time — and not so long ago — immigration enforcement actions took place at worksites, in Los Angeles and many other locations, with such regularity that no one would have paused to bat an eye. Now they are the cause of riots and assaults on federal officers and property, while state and local governments slow-walk law enforcement responses for something as fundamental as protecting the safety of those officers. It is as if these levels of government have a detached notion of 'federalism' that runs only one way: they can levy demands on the federal government, usually involving massive amounts of money and other assistance, while recognizing no obligations in return. What we are seeing, although it has become all too pervasive in progressive hot spots, is not normal. It is the confluence of permissive policies toward crime and violence in blue-run cities and states, with the flooding of the border that took place over the entire length of the Biden administration. During those four years, anywhere from 10 to 14 million aliens entered the country either illegally or under transparently bogus programs designed to facilitate their entry, and all of them apparently believe they have a right to be here — even as they wave foreign flags while tossing Molotov cocktails or setting cars on fire. I have heard a number of politicians and journalists decry the wearing of masks by federal officers (who very reasonably fear being doxxed, putting their families at risk), but I have yet to hear one of them ask why the rioters who shut down traffic, vandalize property and fling bottles, bicycles and other objects at the officers, are also masked. It goes unremarked because the reason is clear: they do not want to be identified and held responsible for their mayhem. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters The difference in reasoning and motivation between the officers and the protesters could not be any more stark. But as we watch lawless rioters go unchecked while federal efforts are stymied by the courts at every turn, some of us may be wondering whether the Constitution has in fact morphed into a suicide pact, given the imbalance that has become apparent in the three branches of government. The judiciary, once described as the 'weakest' branch, has come to wield entirely too much power when a select few district court judges can throw so much sludge into the wheels of government that they grind to a halt. The conclusion that I, and I suspect most Americans, draw from what we are seeing and hearing is that this administration is not only on the right track where immigration enforcement is concerned, but that time is indeed of the essence, and the stakes are incredibly high, if we are to heal from the deliberate rending of the social fabric that has taken place. Dan Cadman is a Center for Immigration Studies fellow and a retired INS/ICE official with 30 years of government experience.


The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Johnson: Deploying Marines to Los Angeles protests would not be ‘heavy-handed'
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said Sunday that deploying the Marine Corps to Los Angeles to suppress protests, as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has suggested, would not be 'heavy-handed.' 'Secretary Hegseth said that active0duty Marines there at Camp Pendleton, there by San Diego, are on high alert and could be mobilized. Could we really see active duty Marines on the streets of Los Angeles?' ABC News's Jonathan Karl asked on 'This Week.' 'You know, one of our core principles is maintaining peace through strength. We do that on foreign affairs and domestic affairs as well. I don't think that's heavy-handed,' Johnson responded. Trump deployed 2,000 National Guard members to the Los Angeles area on Saturday amid protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the action was due to 'violent mobs' attacking federal agents 'carrying out basic deportation operations.' 'The National Guard, and Marines if need be, stand with ICE,' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said in a post on the social platform X on Sunday morning. Deploying active-duty forces against Americans on U.S. soil would be an extraordinary move, and would require bypassing laws that prevent the military from being used for domestic law enforcement purposes. There's also little precedent for deploying the National Guard to states that have not requested the help. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Sunday went after Trump over the deployment of the National Guard to the Los Angeles area, saying the president 'thinks he has a right to do anything.' 'He does not believe in the Constitution; he does not believe in the rule of law,' Sanders told CNN's Dana Bash on 'State of the Union.' 'My understanding is that the governor of California, the mayor of the city of Los Angeles, did not request the National Guard, but he thinks he has a right to do anything he wants,' he added.