(WXYZ) — With time ticking down until Election Day, we are taking in-depth looks on what you’ll be voting on from candidates to ballot proposals.
The first is on Proposal 1.
Here’s the language of the proposed amendment, what it will change, and who is for and against it.
A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the state constitution of 1963, by amending sections 10 and 54 of article IV, to require certain disclosures and to modify limitations on terms of office of state legislators.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the state of Michigan, That the following amendment to the state constitution of 1963, to require certain disclosures and to modify limitations on terms of office of state legislators, is proposed, agreed to, and submitted to the people of the state:
ARTICLE IV
Sec. 10. (1) No member of the legislature nor any state officer shall be interested directly or indirectly in any contract with the state or any political subdivision thereof which shall cause a substantial conflict of interest.
(2) By April 15, 2024, and by a date each year thereafter as prescribed by state law, each member of the legislature, the governor, the lieutenant governor, the secretary of state, and the attorney general shall electronically file an annual financial disclosure report with the department of state that complies with this section. A report required to be filed under this section must include information regarding all of the following:
- Description of assets and sources of unearned income.
- Sources of earned income.
- Description of liabilities.
- Positions currently held as an officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, representative, employee, or consultant of any organization, corporation, firm, partnership, or other business enterprise, nonprofit organization, labor organization, or educational or other institution other than the state of Michigan. The positions required to be disclosed under this subdivision do not include positions held in any religious, social, fraternal, or political entity, or positions that are solely of an honorary nature.
- Agreements or arrangements with respect to future employment, a leave of absence while serving as a legislator or state officer, continuation or deferral of payments by a former or current employer other than the state of Michigan, or continuing participation in an employee welfare or benefit plan maintained by a former employer.
- Gifts received and required to be reported by a lobbyist or lobbyist agent, as prescribed by state law.
- Travel payments and reimbursements received and required to be reported by a lobbyist or lobbyist agent, as prescribed by state law.
- Payments made by a lobbyist or lobbyist agent to a charity in lieu of honoraria.
(3) The financial disclosure report required under subsection (2) must be filed with the department of state in a form and manner prescribed by state law. The department of state shall make the report available to the public online.
(4) The legislature shall further implement this section by appropriate legislation. Legislation implementing this section must not limit or restrict the application of subsections (2) and (3).
(5) If legislation implementing this section is not enacted by December 31, 2023, a resident of this state may initiate a legal action against the legislature and the governor in the Michigan supreme court to enforce the requirements of this section.
Sec. 54. (1) A person may not be elected to the office of state representative or state senator for terms or partial terms that combined total more than 12 years. However, this limitation does not prohibit a person elected to the office of state senator in 2022 from being elected to that office for the number of times permitted at the time the person became a candidate for that office.
(2) This section is self-executing. Legislation may be enacted to facilitate operation of this section, but a law must not limit or restrict the application of this section.
Resolved further, That the foregoing amendment shall be submitted to the people of the state at the next general election in the manner provided by law.
Resolved further, That it is the intent of the legislature that when submitted to the people of the state the amendment be
presented with the following question:
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO REQUIRE ANNUAL PUBLIC FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORTS BY LEGISLATORS AND OTHER STATE OFFICERS AND LIMIT SERVICE AS A LEGISLATOR TO 12 YEARS
This proposed constitutional amendment would:
• Require members of the legislature, the governor, the lieutenant governor, the secretary of state, and the attorney general to file annual public financial disclosure reports after 2023, reporting assets, liabilities, income, positions held, future employment agreements, gifts, travel reimbursements, and other payments.
• Require the legislature to implement but not limit or restrict the reporting requirements.
• Reduce current term limits for state representatives and state senators to a 12-year total limit in any combination between the house of representatives and the senate, with the exception that a person elected to the senate in 2022 may be elected the number of times allowed when that person became a candidate.
Should this proposal be adopted?
[ ] YES
[ ] NO
When you go to vote, this is the first proposal you'll see: 22-1.
Proposal 22-1
A proposal to amend the state constitution to require annual public financial disclosure reports by legislators and other state officers and change state legislator term limit to 12 total years in legislature
This proposed constitutional amendment would:
• Require members of legislature, governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, and attorney general file annual public financial disclosure reports after 2023, including assets, liabilities, income sources, future employment agreements, gifts, travel reimbursements, and positions held in organizations except religious, social, and political organizations.
• Require legislature implement but not limit or restrict reporting requirements.
• Replace current term limits for state representatives and state senators with a 12-year total limit in any combination between house and senate, except a person elected to senate in 2022 may be elected the number of times allowed when that person became a candidate.
Should this proposal be adopted?
[ ] YES
[ ] NO
Rich Studley is with the coalition behind the proposal Voters For Transparency & Term Limits.
“It is a straightforward amendment to the state constitution that does two things. One, Michigan is one of only two states in the country that fails to have any financial disclosure requirements for state lawmakers and state officers,” he says. “If Proposal One is approved, the legislature would be required to enact a law next year, a very detailed and specific law to require complete financial disclosure.
The other part of Proposal One is to reduce the total number of years a politician can stay in the legislature from 14 to 12. You don't have to be an economist or a math major to know that 12 is less than 14. So we shortened term limits.”
Kurt O’Keefe is with a group opposing Prop 1, No More Time For Career Politicians.
"Proposal One does three things, three things. It doubles the time a House member in Michigan can stay in office from three two-year terms to six two-year terms. It increases the state Senate time. You can be in office from two four-year terms to three four-year terms, and it revives the career of over 300 zombie termed, limited past legislators who could now run for the Michigan State House. That's it,” he says.
Very different views on both what Prop 1 means for term limits and what it means for disclosure.
For term limits. Yes, the overall time allowed for any lawmaker drops from 14 to 12, but those years could be served wholly in any one chamber, increasing the current caps.
O’Keefe calls the prop a solution in search of a problem.
“Who is this guy or gal in the 13th or 14th year that did so much damage that there's that this is a problem,” he asks.
Studley argues allowing lawmakers to stay in either chamber longer helps them get more done by cultivating relationships and not worrying as much about the politics of re-election.
“If you want state representatives who are focused on raising money for their next job instead of doing the job they have. I guess if you're in favor of the status quo in Lansing, Then, maybe, Proposal One isn't for you,” he says. “I voted for term limits 30 years ago, but like living in a 30-year-old house, it's time for some maintenance and repairs.”
The transparency part of prop 1 isn't as cut and dry.
The full text says it requires lawmakers to pass legislation requiring an annual financial disclosure by all in the legislature plus the Governor, Lt Governor, Secretary of State, and Attorney General, the disclosures being descriptions of assets and sources of income and certain positions held outside of their current role. But there are exemptions for religious, social, fraternal, or political entities or honorary positions.
“What's left? Even if they pass something, why would they pass something?” asks O’Keefe.
“This legislation requires detailed public financial disclosures, assets, liabilities, income, and several other categories. We believe it will give a full and complete picture. This legislation or amendment isn't wishful thinking. It actually has teeth,” says Studley.
The teeth Studley talks about is the part of the prop stating a resident in the state can initiate legal action directly to the Michigan Supreme Court asking the court to compel the legislature if it fails to create the disclosure law.
O’Keefe suggests that will be legally challenged if Prop 1 passes.
“Guess what? No court in Michigan has jurisdiction to require the legislature to pass a law. It's the basic separation of powers,” he says.
