Trending
To the Journal editor:
In November, Michigan voters will decide on two state ballot proposals. They may sound hard to understand, but both would affect everyday people.
Proposal 2026-1 asks voters if Michigan should hold a meeting in 2027 to rewrite the state constitution. Proposal 2026-2 would change campaign finance rules. It would stop some utilities and large government contractors from giving campaign money to officials who make decisions that affect them. It would also make more political ads show who paid for them.
Proposal 1 may sound like a fresh start, but it could cost taxpayers a lot of money. If it passes, voters would have to elect delegates. The state would have to pay for the election, the meeting, staff, lawyers, public notices, and another statewide vote later. No one can know the full cost ahead of time because no one knows how long the process would take.
Proposal 1 would also open the whole constitution for review. That means many important issues could be changed. These may include schools, taxes, local government, rights, and the power of state leaders. Voters would still get to vote on the final plan, but they would first have to pay for a long and risky process.
Proposal 2 is more focused. It tries to reduce conflicts of interest. Utilities and large contractors often depend on decisions made by state leaders. If those same groups can give money to the campaigns of those leaders, people may wonder who the leaders are really listening to.
Proposal 2 would also have some costs. The state would need to enforce the new rules and explain them to campaigns. It would also need to check more political ads, including online ads. But these costs would be smaller and clearer than the cost of a full constitutional convention.
To me, Proposal 1 is too costly and too risky. Proposal 2 gives voters more information and helps protect trust in government.
This November, I recommend voting No on Proposal 2026-1 and Yes on Proposal 2026-2.