Latest news with #Con-Con
Yahoo
5 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Are you ready to vote on the most important measure in Michigan's 2026 midterms?
Every federal, state or local elected or appointed official swears an oath to the constitutions of the United States, their state and their local government. Given the abuse federal and state politicos are currently shoveling onto constitutions, it's a wonder the constitutions don't swear back at them. Which leads to the most boring but ultimately critical question you will face in Michigan's 2026 election: How will you vote on the ballot proposal to call a new state Constitutional Convention? There will no shortage of headlines about the 2026 election. It's the first time there has been both an open gubernatorial and U.S. Senate seat in the same election. Whatever major disasters or stunning (and surprising) miracles President Donald Trump concocts will guide how voters decide the makeups of the U.S. Congress and our Legislature. There will be specific ballot issues. All these candidates and issues will be hyped with massive buckets-'o-bucks, ads, flyers, calls, door knocking, social media harangues … leaving us overwhelmed. But in this upcoming election, one ballot issue is already designated as Proposal 1 ― so ordered under Article XII, Section 3 of the Michigan Constitution ― and whether Michiganders vote "yes" or "no" could completely change our governmental and legal structure, affecting every aspect of life in this state: How your business runs, your kids are educated, how prisoners are punished, our natural resources managed, what taxes we pay and what the taxes pay for, who will govern us; everything we know now about Michigan rules and regulation could be turned inside out, depending on how we vote on holding a Constitutional Convention. The Michigan Constitution (last revised in 1963) requires voters be asked every 16 years if a new Con-Con (short for 'Constitutional Convention,' natch) should be called. In 1978, 1994 and 2010, voters overwhelmingly said no. Next year, voters will be asked this question again. So, start thinking about it. Time also to acquaint yourself with Michigan's Constitution, if you know nothing about it. Pay attention to this very boring subject, which, like most boring subjects, is really damn important. More Trump's crypto, the Qatar jet ― will supporters finally admit something's wrong? Constitutions are our supreme laws, guiding everything that governs and affects our lives. In some respects, the U.S. Constitution, Michigan's Constitution and your local city charter dictate how you act daily more than more than whatever scripture you follow (or ignore). Officials from the president to members of local municipal commissions (ask my wife, Cindy, who spent years on Huntington Woods' beautification commission) swear to follow and defend those supreme laws. Or they are supposed to. We have expected, experienced and enjoyed such compliance with the rules for most of this nation's nearly 250 years. What is happening now? Trump swore to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution (didn't have his hand on the Bible, but still …) yet he questions if he has to 'uphold' the Constitution. How can you 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution if you do not 'uphold' it? His administration has ignored, thus violating, judicial rulings. He has tried to alter whole sections of the Constitution through Executive Orders, which is not permitted. He has accepted foreign gifts in violation of the Constitution. In open defiance of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the administration is shredding the rule of law. Now there is talk the administration may suspend habeas corpus, an essential right guaranteed in the Magna Carta. (That's a governing document agreed to in 1215 by King John of England, under pressure from rebel barons.) Suspending habeas corpus is allowable only under extreme circumstances defined by the Constitution. Those circumstances do not exist. When asked to define habeas corpus, Homeland Security Security Kristi Noem gave the baffling response that it guaranteed Trump's right to remove people from the country. Nope, not even close. More Democrats better hope Michigan Gov. Whitmer changes her mind about presidential run In Michigan, our constitutional worries are less extreme, but still concerning. State House Speaker Matt Hall, R-Richland, has refused to submit bills passed in the previous session to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, though Michigan's Constitution specifically says that must be done (the argument wasn't helped by a goofy Court of Claims ruling that the bills should be presented, but the court didn't want to interfere in the spat.) Hall has also recently suggested passing a budget isn't required by the state constitution (granted, the constitution doesn't set requirements on enacting a budget, but refers to a budget. A little thing called state law requires when a budget be passed). And earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal brought by 11 Republican legislators challenging the citizens' right to amend the state constitution on certain election issues. Lower federal courts already told the legislators to stuff it, though in nicer legal terms. Approaching the 2026 Con-Con vote, we face a populace and political establishment arguably more badly divided than in any period since maybe the Civil War. Many are driven by fear, anger and even hatred towards their fellow citizens, and unsympathetic to our constitutional principles. Michigan is under its fourth constitution (tidbit: Michigan's Archives will soon transport the first 1835 Constitution ― drafted two years before we became a state ― to Boston specialists for a bit of fixup before it enters a new display in Lansing). After the 1835 Constitution ― which specified only white men could vote ― we had constitutions written in 1850 and 1908. Our current constitution was drafted at the 1961-62 Con-Con, which launched a number of major political careers. Primary among them: George Romney, one of Michigan's greater governors, and longtime Detroit Mayor Coleman Young. Including Michigan, 11 states are on their fourth constitution. Another 20 states use their original constitutions, with Massachusetts' Constitution adopted in 1780. Louisiana is on its 11th constitution, and Georgia's 10th constitution is the most recent, adopted in 1983. Because state constitutions deal with more minutia involving state and local operations, they are longer than the 4,500 or so words in the U.S. Constitution. Michigan's comes in around 31,200 words; a breezy read compared to Alabama's 7th constitution, at nearly 403,000 words. State constitutions are also amended more frequently. In 237 years, the U.S. Constitution has been amended 27 times. Michigan's voters have amended our constitution 39 times, with 85 proposed amendments since it took effect in 1963. The state constitution, and its amendments, state essential Michigan principles. The constitution bans capital punishment, and establishes our court system, principles of education and which schools get state funding ― through our tax dollars ― and guarantees our state colleges and universities are free from political and legislative interference. It prohibits a graduated income tax. It guarantees ― through a recently adopted amendment ― reproductive rights for women. It also sets rules on overall state finance, on how old you must be to go boozing, it determines that we elect 148 total legislators and not hundreds more, and that we have a Senate and House and not a unicameral legislature. The current constitution was written to simplify and modernize Michigan government to face more current realities. The state endured serious recessions in the 1950s, and simply ran out of money. Neither the 1908 Constitution nor lawmakers were able to resolve the problems. Lots more officials were elected ― including the state treasurer and highway commissioner ― and every official served for two-year terms, exhausting voters. That 1960s Con-Con reflected new social and economic realities. It was the first to include women and Black delegates. Labor with business and agricultural interests played a major role. And in those post World War II years, the state and nation had a more positive outlook. There were tensions, of course, with the Cold War, changing roles of women, the Civil Rights movement; but most Americans were optimistic to the future. The chief issue dividing support for the 1963 constitution was that it did not did not recognize the principle of one man-one vote (that issue was resolved eventually by the U.S. Supreme Court). The last three times they were asked, voters declined to call a new Con-Con. But, in each election opposition has declined. In 1978 nearly 77% said no; by 2010, it was nearly 67%. Still a landslide, but what drives the increased support for a new Con-Con? An actual call for change ― either for more progressive government or more conservative ― or just a 'yeah, whatever' mood too many people seem to currently embrace? Or, given our current discontent with one another, do some voters see a new constitution as a way of imposing greater control over those they dislike? The question cannot be ignored. You, the voters, will answer these questions soon enough. Make sure you know why you are answering them the way you do. Free Press contributing columnist John Lindstrom has covered Michigan politics for 50 years. He retired as publisher of Gongwer, a Lansing news service, in 2019. Submit a letter to the editor at and we may publish it online and in print. Like what you're reading? Please consider supporting local journalism and getting unlimited digital access with a Detroit Free Press subscription. We depend on readers like you. This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Will Michigan say yes to Constitutional Convention in 2026? | Opinion
Yahoo
09-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
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
