Constitution of Michigan

And this morning we're tackling something that I think a lot of voters are going to see and say, "Wait, what's that?" It's Proposal 1.

Michigan voters are being asked whether we should convene a constitutional convention in 2027 for the purpose of drafting a general revision of the Michigan Constitution.

This isn't somebody's petition drive.

Michigan's constitution requires this question to go before voters every 16 years.

Let's elect 148 delegates.

Let them do the work and show us what they've come up with," and then Michigan voters would ultimately get another vote on what they produce.

If you vote no, we don't have the convention, and the current Michigan Constitution remains in place.

So if we did vote yes, what could they change? Who are the 148 delegates? Who pays for all of this? Could special interests take over the convention? Could abortion rights be changed? What about gun rights? Voting rights? Term limits? Taxes? Education? I think it's yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

Sure.

Probably foremost in my mind, because it was just an opinion that we released this last term, which is People versus Jennings, and that is a, a criminal case regarding the double jeopardy provision of the Michigan Constitution.

And the significance, I think, of that case is it really lays out the analysis of how to look at Michigan's constitution independent of the US Constitution.

And so it's a really important opinion, I think, on the primacy of, of Michigan's constitution.

The other one is a case from earlier in my tenure, but again, with the Michigan Constitution, and that was Bousman versus the Unemployment Insurance Agency, and that had to do with plaintiffs seeking a right to a remedy under Michigan's constitution when the state has violated Michigan constitutional rights recognized by our Michigan Constitution.

And prior to that case, our court had held that there really was no remedy if the state violates the constitution, and so I think Bousman was significant in that regard.

That was part of the fallout from when the state falsely accused thousands of people of unemployment fraud?

So we're voting, hopefully voting no on that.

And I just want to remind everybody one of the really important reasons that we're voting no on that, because if we vote yes on that, it means that there will be a Constitutional Convention and it does give others the opportunity to basically come in and take away, remember 2022 when we got reproductive rights on the ballot, we had it voted on and we ended up with, we now have reproductive rights in our Constitution of Michigan.

If this particular ballot proposal, Prop 1, actually passes, that means that That can all be overturned.

And that to me is particularly frightening.

Now, it had gone in front of the legislature.

This is part of the mechanics of the Michigan Constitution that this question initially went in front of the legislature.

The state Senate decided not to vote on it.

What do you make of the politics of the legislature saying we're not going to touch this, at least the state Senate?