Propositions, referendums, and amendments on the ballot

[Chibi Halo]

Hey Politics gang it's me again with another slightly lighter political thread here. This time I'm asking for you to teach and inform the rest of us on the types of things we might hear people like Wolf Blitzer, Anderson, Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, and the like discuss and talk about in the coming weeks. In every major political season there's a slew of social and economic issues that appear on the ballot in the form of propositions, referendums, or amendments either locally or state wide. While some might not be as talked about nationwide like California's Prop. 8, people still spend money on getting you to vote one way or another and support their side. Propositions and referendums become the issues the "grass roots" groups, super PACs, and political activists spend all their time and energy educating people on the issue at hand and how it affects you.

So what sort of propositions, referendums, or even amendments are going to show up on your ballots next month when you go to vote that the rest of the country should be watching on election night?

[TANRailgun]

Well, honestly the Michigan ballot measures are the only reason I plan on voting. We have six that are on the ballot for sure:

1) Proposal 1 is veto referendum for the implementation of the expanded powers of EMs (emergency financial managers) passed back in march. This will most likely fail, the EM legislation that passed last spring is WILDLY unpopular up here. Most people see it as a subversion of democracy, and I tend to agree with these people. The only reason it's even on the ballot is because so many members of the public oppose it so much.

2) Proposal 2 would amend the state constitution to ensure the right to collective bargaining via labor unions by reclassifying it as a constitutional right. This one is hard to call, I know it has a lot of support by members of unions (obviously) and a fair amount of support by non-union workers....but there has been one hell of a campaign to get people to shoot this proposal down, how much effect that will have on popular opinion remains to be seen.

3) Proposal 3 would require that 25% of the states energy come from renewable resources by 2025. Pretty straightforward, it will probably pass easily.

4) Proposal 4 would amend the state constitution to establish the Michigan Quality Home Care Council and allow for collective bargaining rights for in-home care givers, and protect the rights of patients to hire in-home care givers of their choice. This one I have almost no idea on, I know it has a slight lead in the polls, but that may not end up meaning much of anything, personally don't know enough about it to post an opinion at this time.

5) Proposal 5 would amend the state constitution to mandate that state tax increases be passed by super majority vote (2/3s majority) in the legislation, or by state wide ballot. I can almost guarantee that this will pass. Personally, I'm split, but leaning away from this proposal.

6) Proposal 6 would amend the state constitution to require that any new bridge or tunnel to Canada be approved by voters first. This I can almost guarantee will pass, because there is a proposed bridge to Canada at the moment which is wildly unpopular due to the cost, and while I will agree that the proposed bridge is too expensive, I don't support amending the state constitution over just one bridge. Still, I think I require more info on the subject before making a final decision.

[azulmagia]

TANRailgun

5) Proposal 5 would amend the state constitution to mandate that state tax increases be passed by super majority vote (2/3s majority) in the legislation, or by state wide ballot. I can almost guarantee that this will pass. Personally, I'm split, but leaning away from this proposal.

Great, Michigan wants to repeat California's mistake.

[TANRailgun]

azulmagia

TANRailgun

5) Proposal 5 would amend the state constitution to mandate that state tax increases be passed by super majority vote (2/3s majority) in the legislation, or by state wide ballot. I can almost guarantee that this will pass. Personally, I'm split, but leaning away from this proposal.

Great, Michigan wants to repeat California's mistake.

My thoughts exactly. Really this is just another proposal to "kill the bridge". Can't build a bridge if you can't pay for it, or so the thinking goes.

[Chibi Halo]

Here in Illinois we have just one major state wide issue facing us right now. We're dealing with a proposed amendment to "add section 5.1 to Article XIII of the Illinois Constitution". I know I know you're sitting there thinking, "What in the heck is Article XIII Section 5 of the Illinois constitution?"



Article XIII Section 5 of the Illinois Constitution

SECTION 5. PENSION AND RETIREMENT RIGHTS
Membership in any pension or retirement system of the
State, any unit of local government or school district, or
any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an
enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which
shall not be diminished or impaired.



So what would Section 5.1 add to the constitution? The proposed amendment adds a section to the Illinois Constitution requiring a three-fifths majority vote to approve any pension or retirement benefit increase for public employees and officials. That means any bill for a pension or benefit increase that goes before the General Assembly here will require both chambers to have a three-fifths majority vote to pass. Salary increases would not be a benefit increase. The reason for this amendment proposal is that right now our public employees retirement system is not financially stable and is underfunded. People for this hope that this requirement would make the Assembly think long and hard before asking for benefit increases because they'd need to convince more people to pass it. And honestly, we have a problem here with benefits getting out of hand here. This is something we could use.

[Ammo Amy]

I smell Grover Norquist's (Via ALEC) dirty little fingers at work here. Does this sound familiar?

Quote:

Initiative Measure 1185
Proposed by Initiative Petition

Initiative Measure No. 1185 concerns tax and fee increases imposed by state government. This measure would restate existing statutory requirements that legislative actions raising taxes must be approved by two-thirds legislative majorities or receive voter approval, and that new or increased fees require majority legislative approval. Should this measure be enacted into law?

Seems many states (The above was from the Washington State ballot) have similar measures embedded.