Home » Voices » Editorial »

EDITORIAL: Proposal 1 for a constitutional convention will not solve Michigan’s problems

By Editorial Board on October 18, 2010 3:45 am in Editorial / 6 comments

 

A convention to revise the state constitution, as suggested by Proposal 1 on the election ballot Nov. 2, is not the answer to the state’s problems at this time.

While there are major issues that need changing in Michigan government, and indeed in the constitution, it should only be rewritten when there is a dire need to retool the logical basis at the core of the document.

The major problems with governing this state do not rest in the core of the document, but with the politicians determining the law and the direction it needs to go in. The air of partisan tension is thick to a breaking point in Lansing and there is a regular and unflinching refusal for legislators to step across the aisle and work together.

The partisan rift is what has kept the state budget from being completed on time multiple years in the recent past and has heavily affected the efficiency of legislators’ ability to approve important bills.

If Proposal 1 is adopted and there is a constitutional convention, these are the people who will be a part of it. These are the people who will potentially consume $50 million and three years, which state Rep. Bill Caul, R-Mount Pleasant, estimates the convention would take up.

Before Michigan makes a more drastic move like revising the constitution, voters in the state should focus on electing officials who are less partisan and more willing to work toward the collective prosperity of the entire state and not any individual, party or special interest group.

With Michigan in the state it currently is, the players in the state government are more integral than the rulebook they are playing with.

One of the primary arguments of those in favor of Proposal 1 is that the current constitution, written in 1963, was created while the state was in a much different economic state than it is now, in the middle of the boom of automotive manufacturing. While that is true, a new constitution is not a giant red “fix it” button that will bolster any kind of industry or job growth in the state.

There are changes that need to be made within the Michigan Constitution, but currently tackling them piece-by-piece through amendments and legislature will create change in the document much quicker than rewriting the constitution from the bottom up.

 

Tags

, , , ,

Related Posts

 
  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=40004846 Shane Stikeleather

    There are too many problems in our state constitution that can't be fixed without a new constitution. You say that that the problem is that the legislator is too partisan. You think that this will change in the next election, or ever? No it will not. The state budget that is supposed to be passed in September was not passed until June of the next year, which affects college students in that state funding provides money to schools such as in your case, Central, or in my case Ferris. We need a constitution that says if the budget is not passed then everyone in the legislator looses pay and benefits pro-rated for everyday that the budget is not passed. We also need to get away from partisan gerrymandering of political districts. We also need to get away from voting for Supreme COurt Justices, university boards, and state board of education members and move this to an independent group. You say that it would be too expensive? Not true. Even if it cost $50 Million that is still only .0000225% of our states budget. A good state constitution that will last for another 40 years is worth many times that cost. If we were to shrink the size of the legislator by cutting it in half, which you would need a constitutional amendment to do, you would save $50 million every year. Boom the cost of the convention is paid for already and for every year after that we would save an additional $50 million for every year after that. While it is not a ” giant red fix it button” it is a large way to fix all of the problems that we here in Michigan have. There are about 20 amendments that need to be made to the constitution and over the last 60 years there have been 19 amendments. Do we really want to wait another 60 years to get all 20 of these amendments passed? I don't think so.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=40004846 Shane Stikeleather

    There are too many problems in our state constitution that can't be fixed without a new constitution. You say that that the problem is that the legislator is too partisan. You think that this will change in the next election, or ever? No it will not. The state budget that is supposed to be passed in September was not passed until June of the next year, which affects college students in that state funding provides money to schools such as in your case, Central, or in my case Ferris. We need a constitution that says if the budget is not passed then everyone in the legislator looses pay and benefits pro-rated for everyday that the budget is not passed. We also need to get away from partisan gerrymandering of political districts. We also need to get away from voting for Supreme COurt Justices, university boards, and state board of education members and move this to an independent group. You say that it would be too expensive? Not true. Even if it cost $50 Million that is still only .0000225% of our states budget. A good state constitution that will last for another 40 years is worth many times that cost. If we were to shrink the size of the legislator by cutting it in half, which you would need a constitutional amendment to do, you would save $50 million every year. Boom the cost of the convention is paid for already and for every year after that we would save an additional $50 million for every year after that. While it is not a ” giant red fix it button” it is a large way to fix all of the problems that we here in Michigan have. There are about 20 amendments that need to be made to the constitution and over the last 60 years there have been 19 amendments. Do we really want to wait another 60 years to get all 20 of these amendments passed? I don't think so.

  • M42angus

    you got remember, if you don't play the game right ,you can't come and play with us

  • Chip4ever

    this is a lousy editorial. did the paper even have an editorial board with both sides of Proposal 1? you can tell they didn't do their reach because in Michigan ballot questions aren't called propositions; yet that's what the headline says. nevertheless, we need a constitutional convention. the costs aren't what opponents like Caul claim. i dare them to produce evidence that says it will cost $50 million. this is demagoguery; plain and simple.

  • http://twitter.com/yesonproposal1 Yes on Proposal 1

    Several other newspapers have endorsed Proposal 1, a state constitutional convention. Many of these endorsements have debunked the outright falsehoods that opponents of Proposal 1 have spread, including the cost of a constitutional convention. Unfortunately, these falsehoods — such as the figure you quote via Central Michigan Life — are being repeated because of sloppy reporting and research. Find out the facts and debunk the myths at http://www.yesonproposal1.com.

    Among those endorsing Proposal 1 are the Detroit Free Press, Grand Rapids Press Jackson Citizen Patriot, Midland Daily News, Oakland Press and Toledo’s Blade newspaper, which serves the Michigan border region.

    “Opponents of a convention sometimes suggest that the Constitution can be fixed gradually, through the amendment process. But lawmakers will never propose any of the fixes themselves, and moneyed interest groups will not propose and fund campaigns for most of the needed changes because they’re happy with the current political landscape.” — Detroit Free Press

    “A constitutional convention can start to tackle people’s frustrations with Michigan government at all levels. The public should support much-needed reform by voting yes on Proposal 1.” — Jackson Citizen Patriot

    “The question is, after more than 45 years, is it time for another review of Michigan's constitution. The answer is an unequivocal yes.” — Midland Daily News

    “Those against the convention seem to be saying they like things the way they are. That seems hard to believe with the state’s unemployment among the highest in the nation at 13.1 percent and the fact we’ve lost one million jobs this decade. If there’s one thing we don’t need, it’s business as usual. Voters need to remember that, yes, it will cost the state some money to have a constitutional convention but the potential for successful change is priceless.” — The Oakland Press

    “Michigan voters should try to fix what's clearly broken.” — The Blade

  • DeeDee1213

    okay i am so confused….If we dont want POLITICIANS changing the Constitution of MI,,we vote NO correct?