Proposal 1 on November ballot could call for constitutional convention if approved

• Tweet
• 

Michigan voters have the opportunity to call for a constitutional convention this election — minus the powdered wigs and ruffled shirts.

Proposal 1, on the ballot Nov. 2, will decide whether or not a group of elected delegates will convene to revise the state constitution. It is required by Michigan law to give voters the chance to have a constitutional convention once every 16 years.

If Proposal 1 is adopted, 148 delegates, one from each senatorial and representative district, will be elected through a partisan election and be required to convene no later than the first Tuesday of October 2011.

“There are no rules and there are no limits,” said Political Science Professor James Hill. “Technically they could re-write the constitution.”

The convention may change the constitution in any way delegates see fit, including altering or deleting any ballot proposal to amend the constitution approved by voters in this election.

Hill said any changes made through a convention must then be ratified by Michigan voters. If voters do not approve the revised document, it will not be adopted as law.

Bill Caul, R-Mount Pleasant, 99th District, is opposed to the potential constitutional convention, partly because of the potential cost. He said while there is no specific amount, he has seen figures estimating the costs of a convention at $48 to $50 million.

“I would rather if we used $48 to $50 million toward student scholarships,” Caul said. “There are other places that can use these dollars right now. I think we just need to do a better job with the constitution we have instead of spending more money to get a new one.”

In addition to cost, Caul said having a constitutional convention would take an estimated 2 to 3 years to complete, a process that would tie the hands of newly elected leaders.

Mount Pleasant Mayor Jim Holton said as of now he is unaware of any specific changes to the state constitution currently being discussed that would affect Mount Pleasant, but is worried about changes that could be made if it were open to too many special interest groups.

“We can only know when the convention is over,” Holton said. “I would rather change the constitution one item at a time than do a large and mass change all at once that could confuse voters.”

The last time the issue was in the ballot was 1994 and if it is turned down voters will not have the option again until 2026.

Hill said while he is not opposed to the idea of a convention, he would rather officials examine specific issues that need to be looked at.

“I have mixed emotions. I think a review of the constitution periodically is a good idea, but I worry about the fact that this is a wide open situation,” Hill said. “It’s that uncertainty that makes people hesitant.”