Don't Fubar the Constitution - No deals with Glenn Beck's con-con.

Don't Fubar the Constitution.

Anything you want to make significant changes to something, you have to prepare for unintended consequences. One of the most frustrating things I deal with in politics is when people with good intentions fail to see things coming that even a bat should see. 

There's a push from Mark Levin and Glenn Beck and some of their allies for what some call an Article V Convention of the States. While I respect Mark Levin as an attorney, (don't have much use for Glenn Beck), I can not disagree more with this push. My disagreement is to the point where it may significantly impact my vote in the primary if a state rep or state senator supports this extremely dangerous project.

Convention of States is the main site pushing for this. 


First off, this is Article V of the Constitution.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. 

 

That is the original text. As far as conventions go, there isn't any history there under the current government. Anything Levin or Beck say is pure conjecture at best. That's the biggest danger. Anything could be on the table, just like what would happen with a full con-con. If 3/4 of the convention supports it, we could be in a bad way.

The original constitution came from a con-con that was supposed to "amend" the Articles of Confederation. Instead behind closed doors, they wrote a new constitution. That didn't just happen. That was the plan, at least by some like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. That's the only history we have in the US with anything close to a con-con. It was a whole new constitution.

The proponents of this "convention of states" say that there's four reasons why we need this project.

1. Spending and debt.
2. Regulatory issues.
3. Attacks on State Sovernity
4. Federal Takeovers.

There's a solution to all of these problems. Good elected officials. Get a new senate and president. The problems with government are caused by people. Any system is as good or bad as the people there. This group points at the federal agencies being a gigantic problem with regulations. They are right. They are. The problem is due to Nixon era congresses giving that power to these agencies. Congress gave the power away. It never took back the power of these admins to stop the regulations. That's the problem in the first place.

They close on that page by saying this.

This is not a partisan issue. Washington, D.C., will never voluntarily relinquish meaningful power—no matter who is elected.

We have elections for a reason. That's an assumption. A con-con won't change that assumption, because by their logic, these amendments won't change because they will be in DC (or DC will go to them). 

The only rational conclusion is this: unless some political force outside of Washington, D.C., intervenes, the federal government will continue to bankrupt this nation, embezzle the legitimate authority of the states, and destroy the liberty of the people. Rather than securing the blessings of liberty for future generations, Washington, D.C., is on a path that will enslave our children and grandchildren to the debts of the past.

There is a political force out of DC. Voters. That's the rational conclusion. DC has the power because people put them there. What difference will con-con representatives do when they draft these so called "amendments?" You're still dealing with a government class selected likely by politicians. Do you trust them?

They SAY that they can have a Article 5 Convention on a 'subject' and assume it would be limited to a subject.

1. We want to call a convention for a particular subject rather than a particular amendment. Instead of calling a convention for a balanced budget amendment (though we are entirely supportive of such an amendment), we want to call a convention for the purpose of limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.

That can mean anything.  The key word is "purpose." Laws in Congress state a "purpose" all the time and do not always limit themselves to that purpose. Sometimes, it doesn't go near the supposed "purpose". Go back to Article V actual text, not what they think it is.

shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress

Valid to ALL intents and purposes. Once again, anything is on the table.

What Sorts of Amendments Could be Passed?
The following are examples of amendment topics that could be discussed at a convention of states:

• A balanced budget amendment
• A redefinition of the General Welfare Clause (the original view was the federal government could not spend money on any topic within the jurisdiction of the states)
• A redefinition of the Commerce Clause (the original view was that Congress was granted a narrow and exclusive power to regulate shipments across state lines--not all the economic activity of the nation)
• A prohibition of using international treaties and law to govern the domestic law of the United States
• A limitation on using Executive Orders and federal regulations to enact laws (since Congress is supposed to be the exclusive agency to enact laws)
• Imposing term limits on Congress and the Supreme Court
• Placing an upper limit on federal taxation
• Requiring the sunset of all existing federal taxes and a super-majority vote to replace them with new, fairer taxes

Of course, these are merely examples of what would be up for discussion. The convention of states itself would determine which ideas deserve serious consideration, and it will take a majority of votes from the states to formally propose any amendments.

I'll add these proposed amendments:

1. The Second Amendment shall be repealed and firearms shall be banned. (reduce BATF paperwork would "reduce government.")
2. Abortion is a fundamental right and all regulations against it shall be repealed.
3. With the passage of ACA/Obamacare and obesity being a major problem, harmful substances such as alcohol, soft drinks, and red meat shall be taxed at 50% to reduce costs. 

I can argue about any of those with the "purpose to limit government." It's not what this group has in mind.

The biggest problem however is this, and even their group admits it.

How Do States Choose Their Delegates?
States are free to develop their own selection process for choosing their delegates—properly called “commissioners.” Historically, the most common method used was an election by a joint session of both houses of the state legislature. 

That's the biggest problem of all. Who is actually going to vote on the amendments? Nobody has any idea.

This thing needs to be DOA. There are too many unintended consequences and too much potential for bad actors to destroy the constitution. Even if this succeeds, the results will always be as good as the people elected to office. The constitution as it is now should constrain bad reps. It doesn't. Why would this be different. Get rid of the bad reps, and you solve the problem. 

The Republican Party - Grass Roots vs Establishment? It's more complicated than that.

You don't have to look far to know that there's a rift in the Republican Party right now. A lot, although not all, of the grass roots do not like Mitt Romney. A lot, although not all, of the establishment in the party support Romney. There's still hard feelings, and if SCOTUS and Eric Holder weren't going to be big issues, I'd be voting Libertarian for President this year. I'll probably hold my nose and take one for the team, but I'm going to be concentrating my actual campaign efforts on downticket and non partisan races this year. Our Senate nominee, 8th District stuff, judges, and county.

With the Romney campaign and their allies on Fox News getting their way, a lot of people are railing against "the establishment." There's actually multiple establishments. I'll admit that I sometimes use the term the establishment, but there is always one thing we need to keep in mind when it comes to actual GOP establishments. If there is a bad GOP establishment, in most cases who is to blame? Republican VOTERS. The establishment is there because voters allow it to be there. Most GOP establishment with the exception of caucus is either directly or indirectly elected.

There's nothing we can do about the decisions made by caucus except to give our reps an earful. Caucus is NRSC, NRCC, and their state equivalents. The only thing we can do there is not donate. I've long said that NRSC especially shouldn't receive a dime, especially after the same clowns who run it were reappointed. I generally limit my donations to individual candidates or to accounts which I have control or at least veto power either officially, or unofficially. 

Anyone who is complaining about the establishment needs to step up to the plate or they need to shut up. Marco Rubio said it best in 2010 when the establishment pushed RINO Charlie Crist. “If you are unhappy with the Republican establishment, then let’s get a new establishment.”  Some think because the Tea Party was a big deal in 2010 that they automatically get what they want. It doesn't work that way. The Republican Party has a 160 year history. 3 years is a footnote in that history. 2 years is one election cycle. I've seen a lot of leaders come and go, and I've been involved in party politics as long as I've been a republican. 11 years active. State Party has had five chairs in that short amount of time. Livingston County GOP has had six chairs in that time. 8th District has had at least four that I know of.

This is how things work.

May - Filing deadline. Precinct Delegate candidates file to run for their position.

August - Primary elections. Precinct Delegate candidates run in the primary election. They are often, but not always unopposed.

What do precinct delegates do? A lot of people will say different things about a precinct delegate's responsibilities, but in reality there are two jobs for precinct delegates.

1. Pick the delegates to state conventions at your county conventions. 

2. After November, select your county executive committee, which picks its officers. 

That's it. There's a lot of other things precinct delegates SHOULD be doing, but those are the main responsibilities.

Different things happen at different state conventions. The next one elects RNC Committeeman/Committewoman (full convention) for and delegates (by district) for the National Convention that formally nominates Romney. I was not a Romney supporter in the primary, and he won the 8th district, so there's no chance I'd win even if I was running for that.

A future convention after August and before November nominates candidates for Supreme Court and the university trustees.

After the November election, we have county conventions for party leadership, as then a state convention for state party and district leadership.

The bottom is that here in Michigan, if we like, or dislike (or in some cases both) what state party, district party, or county party is doing, something can be done about it. If you don't like what I'm doing on 8th district and you're a district resident, you can and try and toss me off the committee. If you like what I'm doing, you can keep me on there. I'm biased, but I'm supporting incumbents for the 8th District if they choose to run again. I think we've come a long ways from what we started before the current leadership. We still have a ways to go to get to my standards, but it's moving in the right direction.

It takes organization, campaign ability, patience, and effort to get positions on committees and to do a good job on those committees. Those that don't have that and like to just sit around and bitch shouldn't be in charge or on committees anyway.

Folks that I support for delegates or committee positions are those who do the work, first and foremost. I don't vote based on your consultant ties, or even your presidential decision. While ideology is an issue to some degree, competence is a bigger one with me. Those who show up at meetings and more importantly do things are those who get my support. I actively vote against Johnny come lately types who because they have a title of some sort, think we should bow down to them because they think they are important.

The bottom line though is that most of the "establishment" is picked, indirectly, by Michigan Republican Primary voters. If you want to make changes to the party,  it starts in May with filings, and  August with elections. It's put up or shut up time for critics. 

Why Michigan GOP should have a caucus in 2012 instead of convention or primary

This is gaining some ground over in Washtenaw County, and I'm inclined to agree with it. It's the best plan I've seen so far.

MICaucus 2012

This plan was developed by volunteer Republican and Tea Party activists searching for a way to protect the integrity of the Republican nomination process and position the movement to defeat Barack Obama.

We designed a system that encourages all campaigns to get volunteers involved in precinct leadership, and awards delegates to campaigns as fairly as can be.

A system that could be low-cost, pay for itself, or make a profit.

A system to strengthen the Republican Party and encourage the Tea Party.

A system immune to left-wing tampering, ballot fraud, insider politics—and accusations of any of them!

I'd like to say that I thought of this myself, but I'm not part of this group, although I agree with a lot of what they are saying. There's a video, powerpoint, and pdf file there all worth a look.

Most of the talk I'm hearing is closed primary vs modified primary vs convention (and they are confusing caucus with convention). A lot of insiders do not want a convention because 1500 people will likely be making the decision for the nomination. I understand that. I don't think a convention will go anywhere. Bad politics, and policy. While my vote would count more, many friends of mine who are activists would be shut out of a convention. I oppose this as much as I do an open primary, which dilutes votes with democrats. McCain 2000 and Fieger 98 shows pitfalls there.

Open primaries only work when there is a open contest on both sides. In 2012, that's not going to happen. Modified is what we had last time to an extent. It's open, but you have to declare party. I don't think that will work in 2012 for the same reason open primaries don't work. Cross party voting in primaries.

Caucuses are the best way to limit the pool to republicans choosing their own party's nomination, while at the same time not being too exclusive limiting republicans from voting in republican races.

State committee needs to get this one right. They have a reputation (sometimes deserved and sometimes undeserved - the reality is quite complicated) as a top down power broker's club of two conflicting consulting firms favoring certain candidates at any cost (McCain v Romney in 06-08). This can go a long ways towards them improving relationships with the grassroots putting their biggest issue of all in their hands.

This issue is their baby, and will have major ramifications in party leadership decisions at the next convention. Anything viewed as a coronation for a favorite will be bad news for everybody involved, except Obama. We don't need that. A caucus will put the decisions in the hands of activists. Candidates will have to earn our votes, and may the best person win the Republican nomination.

Now we need to make sure the GOP has good leadership

I'll get to the detailed results later except to say that the GOP had a big win. It looks as if there is a clean sweep statewide. County, state house (I think, I need to double check), state senate, Governor, AG, Secretary of State, and a conservative Supreme Court.

Due to the arrogance and fubars from 06 through 08, the voters gave us a gift, just as Obama was given a gift in 2008. Obama is a dumbass and blew his chance. The GOP were dumbasses and blew it from 02-06. Don't blow it. Don't cave to beltway interests and sell out. Big Government Conservatism is dead and has been repudiated as much as Obama leftism has been. Conservatives, independents, and liberals alike don't want the same old schiese. We need to stay involved and hold our new reps feet to the fire. That means calling them, writing them, talking to them, and getting party leaders that will remind them who is in charge. Us. The people.

Those that do good work need to be rewarded. Those that don't need to be fired in August.

I've long said that politics is a marathon and not a sprint. That's true. We need to make sure our reps have their feet held to the fire when it comes to their voting decisions. Republicans that act like democrats, especially on fiscal issues, lose power quickly. The GOP can not be like Bush and Congress from 2002-2006. No more TARPS. No more AIGS. No more No Child Left Behind. No more Prescription Drugs boondoggles. Those were bipartisan pieces of crap.

It's also time to make sure the GOP has good leadership. Some of this we can control, and some of this we can't. We can't control much who the house and senate pick for leadership, both federally and state. All we can do is call our GOP reps and ask them to pick the right people for leadership. The rest of the legislative leadership is outside of our control. John Proos and Randy Richardville are jockeying for leadership in the state senate. I have some concerns about Richardville on fiscal matters. He's great for populist Monroe County and its labor history, but is he fiscally right for leadership?

The Republican Party Leadership is within our control. There's a County Convention coming up the 18th. This convention is where party leadership and the next executive committee will be chosen. I have a vote here as do all seated precinct delegates.

Unfortunately, Mike Murphy is stepping down as Livingston County Republican Party Chair. He promised one term, and that's what he gave. He did a good job there and if he changes his mind, he has my support. He did not have a big personal agenda and did not play games. He inherited a tough administrative related issue, and brokered a good agreement early on before it gave us headaches. We all made a few calls and resolved the issue before it became a big problem. Murph gave everyone a fair shake regardless of title, but was no pushover either (by factions or by Lansing). Meetings were usually on track and on time. There was generally good planning and good budgeting. He left it in better shape than when he took over. I expect the same from the next county party leadership.

County Party Leadership is chosen by the executive committee. The executive committee is chosen by precinct delegates which were seated at the previous convention or earlier (elected in primary). That is why the precinct delegate races are so important. Precinct delegates choose the at large county party executive committee members (statutory members are county commissioners, state reps, state senator, sheriff, prosecutor, treasurer, clerk, and register of deeds). The executive committee that is elected chooses its officers.

After this county convention, there will be another convention in the future. This one is for District and State Party leadership. Precinct delegates will choose state delegates, which will caucus with District and will choose the leadership for the district committee and leadership, state committee (underrated, but with the most power), and state party officers.

The current 8th district committee has done a very good job in a limited amount of time. It was dormant for about ten years. During the entire time I've been active, the 8th District Committee was nothing more than a convention procedures committee. That changed under the new leadership. We organized, planned strategy, raised some money, and helped the counties in our jurisdiction without being micro-managers. I will be running for re-appointment for the 8th district committee. I will be supporting incumbents for the committee leadership in the 8th District committee due to its excellent transition from a pure convention procedures committee to an actual political party committee. I think we've earned it, but that's not for me to decide.

There's already rumors about potential candidates running for State Chair. Traditionally, the governor picks the state chair. If he does, he needs to make sure it's a good choice which will be accepted by the grassroots. Snyder may stay neutral (which would not surprise me) as well and that is probably the safest position for him. I think a lot of the establishment is going to push a real big name to try and quell a floor fight. In the past, that would work. Today, I'm not sure. Right now, I'm undecided and am waiting for any official announcements before I make a decision. Another big position is RNC Committeeman/Committeewoman. The RNC Committeeman/Committeewoman are two votes towards the next RNC chair. That's another big deal with ramifications.

This is the beginning, and not the end.

The Michigan Republican Convention - 8-28-2010

It was a long, long, long, long, day today. I didn't get much (any) sleep for today, so this may come off as a little ornery. Today was the Republican convention. It was a little different than most conventions and probably has the most contentious floor fights since a couple of the Youth Chair fights a few years back.

The nominees are as follows:

Lt Governor - Brian Calley
UM Regents - Andrea Fischer Newman and Andrew Richner (Uncontested)
Wayne State Trustee - Danialle Karmanos and Diane Dunaskiss (Uncontested)
MSU Trustee - Mitch Lyons and Brian Breslin
State Board of Education - Dr. Richard Zeile and Eileen Weiser (Uncontested)
Supreme Court - Justice Robert Young and Judge Mary Beth Kelly
Attorney General - Bill Schuette
Secretary of State - Ruth Johnson

The first sign that this wasn't going to be an average convention is the rumors and hype about what the rules were going to be, etc. Much of that was yesterday. I was asked to be alternate for the rules committee. If I was voting on changes or potential changes to the rules, I wanted to know what the facts were and not what the hype was. I was not elevated to being on the committee, and based on what I found out, I'm kind of glad I wasn't because I was going to be dodging a bunch of arrows no matter what I did. I left when that committee started because I heard there was rumor of possible 8th district caucus beforehand, and with at least three high ranking 8th district committee members tied up in the rules meeting, I wanted to make sure I was ready if needed for votes as I'm an officer on 8th district. I didn't stay in the rules meeting for the whole thing, but I know the proposed changes failed on a close vote. I was opening to altering one rule, and was completely against altering most of them. One alarming rumored rules proposal was straight out of the union. No secret ballot. That was a problem in the past, and I'm glad that we have had a secret ballot for the last couple conventions. It needs to stay, and I will be raising hell here if that ever changes. More on the rules later.

My biggest complaint was the lines. I knew this was going to be a tough convention because there are a lot of new people with tea parties, longtime local activists who now were going statewide, and the longtime activists and normal factions who were there. We knew there was going to be a high turnout. That's part of the reason why this was at the Breslin Center. However, there should not be hour+ lines going on to start the convention. That's going to put people in a foul mood to begin with. I understand the need for security, but there should have at least been multiple lines (A-L/M-Z etc), or credentials mailed. That would have saved at least 2-3 hours today.

The first interesting battle was over Lt Governor. The West Michigan Tea Party faction opposed Brian Calley as Snyder's pick, or wanted to send a message of some sort and wanted Bill Cooper, who ran for Congress in the 2nd District, to be the Lt Governor. The big battle was over the voting process on this. The party wanted a show of hands. The tea party wanted roll call. It was getting very contentious until Cooper withdrew from the race and gave his speech. It was a good speech, and if there is a lesson to learn from that, it is to learn the processes of conventions, its rules, how the committee members are selected and elected, and how they are changed. This is a marathon, not a sprint. Personally for this race, I'd like to have seen this go to a secret ballot vote with the others which were on there, even using "candidate A and Candidate B" ballots. It could have been done that way. The raise of hands votes can be shady at times. Oral roll call would have taken 10 hours and I would have staunchly opposed that. I know traditionally that the Governor candidate historically picks the LT candidate which is almost always confirmed easily, but there needs to be preparation when the gubernatorial candidate gets 35% in the primary. I didn't have a problem with Calley, especially when some of the other names I've been hearing were much, much, worse. However, there is a virulent backlash against anything these days that comes off as old boys club, whether it is or not.

After that start, there was a bunch of uncontested races that were uneventful. I was waiting for one to have some possible headaches, but that didn't happen.

Then came the contests. Most were done right. Two of them were one on one. Winner wins. That's how the AG and Supreme Court races were. The Supreme Court race was civil with Mary Beth Kelly winning easily with the support of the justices of what used to be considered the best State Supreme Court in the country. The AG race was for awhile, but I think Bill Schuette nearly lost what was at one time a massive lead when his camp drew first blood and went negative through a surrogate (when there was an extremely negative SoS campaign). I expected better from him. I like both Schuette and Bishop and can easily vote for either of them this fall. Schuette won in a very close race, and will be facing Genesee (Flint) County Prosecutor. Judge Schuette v Prosecutor Leyton. It should be an interesting race.

One major contentious race was MSU trustee. It turned out the way the rules were set up worked better for the candidate opposed by many of the establishment anyway. They wanted all candidates up with people voting for the top two of the three. The way the rules were set up split the MSU trustee seats. These were rules from either February or last year. They've been there for awhile. I didn't like this particular one, but the process should have been set then, not today. Anyway, it wasn't the way I was concerned it would be. I was concerned that incumbent Don Nugent, whom I did not support due to tuition increases and too much of a willingness to go along with the more liberal decisions of the board, would be getting a free pass. Nugent was openly supported by most of the state party due to being an incumbent. It turned out that Nugent did not get a free pass. He announced his re-election for what was classified as either "seat A" or "seat B". I'm not sure which was which. Breslin ran for the seat currently held by democrat Colleen McNamara (Airport Ed McNamara's daughter). Lyons ran as well and had to choose one seat or the other. He chose, whether planned or not, Nugent's seat. Breslin got the pass. Going into the convention, I thought it was going to be vote for two out of the three. That's how it should have been, just like the November ballot. For me, at least I could have done that in that I could vote for both Breslin and Lyons as planned.

What really riled up the crowd was when one individual introduced a motion. That was poorly handled, and may have actually contributed to costing Nugent his trustee position. The motion was combining the two seats and having the top two of the three candidates moving on the ballot, just as we vote for two candidates in the November election. The parliamentarian said that the motion was for Mitch Lyons to run on two ballots, once against Breslin, and once against Nugent. That was not the motion. Not at all. That could have been explained better through the rules and procedures that they were not allowed to do things as stated in the motion and that the alternative allowed under the rules that had to be approved before convention only allowed this instead. Do you still support this motion? That really riled up the crowed and looked like incumbent protection to many of the newcomers there, as well as some of the old guard who were not procedure junkies. The vote came in, and Lyons won. It wasn't even all that close.

There was contention of the Secretary of State race procedures. Some wanted multiple votes where the last place candidate dropped out. The rules stated two votes. The highest two vote-getters run off Southern Style for the winner (unless one gets 51%). I happen to support the current rules in place for this race, else we'd be there all night. Runoff system works great here. It worked well here, and it was fair.

It was an interesting convention, and it foreshadows the future and what we as activists need to prepare for AFTER the November elections. Bill Cooper hinted at this to his tea party supporters. Those who are tea party activists, long time republican activists who aren't tea party, establishment supporters, and your classic convention unpredictable swing voter like me need to know how things work. Marco Rubio said it best in Florida when he was battling RINO Charlie Crist, then supported by Florida's state party. If you don't like the job the establishment is doing, pick a better establishment.

We as republicans choose our establishment. My own view on establishment is this. When they are right, I support them. When they are wrong, I don't. Today they were both. They were dead right in the Secretary of State race, and dead wrong in their quasi semi-official support of Don Nugent (whom the majority believed did not deserve re-election). Regardless of that, the establishment is elected. That goes for State Party, down to county party.

Precinct delegates make the decision. Their number one job is to choose party leadership. They(we) need to be informed in what goes on. That means they need to show up at meetings. They need to show up at conventions. They need to know who is running for the party positions, and make informed decisions as to who they support.

All Precinct Delegates go to county conventions. County Conventions choose the county executive committee. I happen to think that Livingston County's executive committee, the "establishment" here does a pretty good job. The county conventions choose delegates to different state conventions. After the election, there will be a state convention for party leadership. Those delegates chosen go to state convention and caucus with congressional district. This chooses our district committee. Until this current term, the 8th district committee was just a bunch of fancy titles that didn't do jack squat outside of procedures at state. This term, we've built the committee from nearly scratch and it will be a player in some races this fall.

It is also at these conventions were state committee is chosen (outside of county/district chairs - which are also elected by delegates). This is the big one. State Committee. There's also state party officers - chair and vice-chair which are also elected by state delegates.

Know the processes. Know how things work. Work through the processes to create good change when needed, and prevent bad change (Ie, the Hamburg problem spreading to the county party) when it isn't needed. Prior planning prevents piss poor performance. That goes for everybody. Establishment. Tea Party. Candidates. Delegates.

County Conventions, Inside baseball, tea parties, Hamburg, power politics, and future warnings

I don't usually post much inside baseball here, especially local related. It usually isn't constructive. It puts me in the line of fire in areas where I'd rather not be.

Last Thursday, August 12th, was the Republican Party County Conventions. The convention is the same day in all counties. The purpose of THIS convention is to choose the delegates for State Convention. The real power though isn't decided at this convention. This one does matter for Lt Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Supreme Court, and university races, but ideologywise, it's not that big of a deal (depending on Snyder's LT pick). This time. The big one is AFTER November. We have two conventions there. One to pick county party leadership, and one to pick the leadership for state committee and district committee.

The process is different for each county. Most are "at-large" while I believe Oakland is "caucus."

A conservative teacher - Oakland County

Mason County

Jason Gillman - Grand Traverse County

Here in Livingston, our chair Mike Murphy and the election committee here did a very good job of a potentially terrible situation. The committee worked to make sure the what would otherwise be competing interests from getting into a major fight. There was a combination of old guard, somewhat newer conservative activists who are involved, and tea party participants. Previous conventions in Livingston were easy. Who wanted to go to state went. This one had about 2-3 times the normal turnout.

The one group left out was the Hamburg clique which wants to take control of the party. They were the filibustering ones there. Here's a newsflash for the Hamburg gang and their takeover attempt. You're not that important. We don't care that you are elected officials. We don't care that one of you are related to the Romneys. We don't care about your personal vendettas against a couple of activists due to local Hamburg politics. We do care however, that we don't want the soap opera embarrassment coming to County Party. We got on track internally in the last four years and do not need your clique to screw it all up. One of the clique members was running his mouth at about how bad the county party is for not doing enough to back recalls etc in Hamburg. This was about the umpteenth rant and fillibuster from the clique, and the rest of the 125 people there in the packed house was tired of it. I had enough myself and admit, somewhat rudely interrupted the individual with a five word comment. "Because you don't show up."

Despite not being on County Executive Committee in four years (I'm on district instead), I go to most of the meetings. I'm on a strategy committee. I do behind the scenes work for them. I don't see that Hamburg clique at any of those events. They then come here, and run our mouth about us at an event for state convention delegates, after not doing anything except put us in the papers? The rest of the crowd wasn't impressed with most of that clique either, as they finished way back in the pack in voting for convention delegate, barely making alternate. My choices were made quite easily in voting. Humble the clique.

We need to be prepared though when the county party leadership is going to be picked. We can not allow Livingston to turn into Hamburg Township Government. We need to make sure that the next committee takes what is best from the past four years, and improves on it, and represents the county well and does not become a soap opera. I think the county did that well with the tea party groups in the area for this meeting and hope that continues to be the case. I don't expect that from the Hamburg clique based on the behavior I saw Thursday.

Leave the soap opera politics back in township. I don't like it there, but I don't live there. It's not really my business outside of periphery. Pushing this on county makes it my business and county doesn't have time for that BS.

Official Con Con opposition committee forms

Speaking of the Michigan Chamber, they are leading the way against this years constitutional convention aka con-con which will be on the ballot this November. I've discussed my own strong opposition to the con-con on several occasions which can be read on this link. It is too much of a risk of our checks and balances against massive governmental power.

From the Detroit News

A long list of interest groups has formed a coalition to oppose the constitutional convention proposal on the November ballot, organizers announced today.
Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution includes business, education, agricultural, local government, faith-based, transportation and health care groups. The coalition says it is concerned about "the costs in time, uncertainty and dollars" a constitutional convention would require.
"A constitutional convention will handcuff our next governor and legislature for at least two years and effectively prevent them from tackling issues like spending reform, tax policy, education and economic development," said Rich Studley, president of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

Backers of the so-called "con-con" -- including Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Republican gubernatorial candidate Sen. Tom George of Kalamazoo -- have said a rewrite of the Constitution would be the most effective way to make the reforms needed in state government.
The coalition said the convention would reopen the contentious issues recently decided by voters -- such as embryonic stem cell research, the affirmative action ban, gay marriage and assisted suicide, among others. There have been 31 amendments to the constitution since 1963.
Michigan's constitution was last rewritten in 1962. Law requires a constitutional convention issue be placed on the ballot every 16 years. Con-con ballot proposals were soundly defeated in 1978 and 1994. Some say the proposal has a better chance of passage this year because of general dissatisfaction with state government.
Approval of the ballot issue would require election of delegates, a series of meetings and another public vote on the end result of the convention. Cost estimates have run as high as $45 million, but backers of con-con say it would be much less than that.

The biggest reasons I oppose it is the push by Phil Power's people to reduce elections, eliminate recall provisions, and to raise taxes. The other reason is that in the off-time elections, those likely elected to be delegates are famous names or ex-politicians. They will be the ones writing the new constitution.

That is bad news, and this should be defeated.

Craig Ruff of Dome Magazine and Public Sector Consultants on constitutional convention

I was looking up some writings on the constitutional convention proposal which we will be voting on in 2010, and found some interesting stuff in Dome Magazine. Surprisingly to me, I haven't been familiar with it. It's quite interesting, and has some interesting comments on the articles, including Bob LaBrant and Richard McLellan, two individuals whom have earned my respect with their political knowledge.

Recently, Craig Ruff (former Milliken/Brickley staffer) of influential Public Sector Consultants in Lansing wrote several columns in Dome Magazine in support of the constitutional convention proposal and gave reasons for them. Some of his proposals I those I'd support. On other proposals I have strong disagreement. That does not change my opposition to a con-con in any matter largely because of the risks and processes involved in a con-con due to the rules of the game which I discussed in length several times, most recently on December 6th. That won't change at all even if it looks like 2010 will be a repeat of 1994. 

There are six columns Ruff wrote which are all at the Dome Magazine website. I recommend taking a look at them, as well as the comments, and my previous writings on this, no matter which side of the con-con debate you stand.

The first was titled Really Big Changes which is his introduction on this issue. He has his pros and cons on a con-con. Here are the pros. I didn't post his cons in the except because they aren't much different than what I wrote.

A Few Pros
The people of Michigan may gain from a convention looking over a document nearly 50 years old and amended 32 times since 1963.
Compare the history of the U.S. Constitution to Michigan’s constitution:

• The U.S. Constitution has been amended fewer times, even though the national document is 218 years old and the state constitution is 46 years old. Since 1789 and with the exception of the first 10 (the Bill of Rights) coming right off the bat in 1789-1791, the U.S. Constitution has been amended 17 times in 218 years, compared to the state constitution being amended 32 times in its 46 years.
• Since Michigan adopted its current constitution and adopted 32 amendments, we have added four amendments to the U.S. Constitution (Amendment 24 prohibiting poll taxes; the 25th prescribing presidential succession; the 26th setting 18 as the voting age; and the 27th requiring that the compensation to federal legislators be set after the election of new House members — this guy had been sitting on the “proposed and to be resolved” desk since 1792!).
• The state constitution’s length dwarfs by thousands of words that of the nation’s. Put the two in the same font size on a scale. If you weighed what the state constitution does, you’d call an 800 number for a weight-loss pill or 911.

Bogged down in excruciating detail, the state constitution is less a template for how government governs and how we balance the rights of individuals and the powers of government than a laundry list of this is how you should do that details.
How detailed is the Michigan Constitution? Allowing for space, I must deflate fonts to give three examples.

• For the retirement of notes and bonds issued under Section 26 of Article X of the 1908 constitution there is hereby appropriated from the general fund each year during their life a sum equal to the amount of principal and interest payments due and payable in each year.
• The legislature may authorize lotteries and permit the sale of lottery tickets in the manner provided by law. No law enacted after January 1, 2004, that authorizes any form of gambling shall be effective, nor after January 1, 2004, shall any new state lottery games utilizing table games or player operated mechanical or electronic devices be established, without the approval of a majority of electors voting in a statewide general election and a majority of electors voting in the township or city where gambling will take place. This section will not apply to gambling in up to three casinos in the City of Detroit or to Indian tribal gaming.
• State Police Troopers and Sergeants shall, through their elected representative designated by 50% of such troopers and sergeants, have the right to bargain collectively with their employer concerning conditions of their employment, compensation, hours, working conditions, retirement, pensions, and other aspects of employment except promotions which will be determined by competitive examination and performance on the basis or merit, efficiency and fitness, and they shall have the right 30 days after commencement of such bargaining to submit any unresolved disputes to binding arbitration for the resolution thereof the same as now provided by law for Public Police and Fire Departments.

Dorothy Parker inscribed her tombstone and gave us good advice: If you can read this, you’re standing too close.

 As strong as my opposition to a con-con is, those are good points. It has been amendment, more often than it should have been. However, those amendments can also be repealed in the same way. I remember the gambling proposal quite well. Look how that's worked with the new Indian casinos (which I have no problem with). I voted no for the record.

The big push is for abolishing one of the legislature chambers. Ruff suggests the following:

You can argue that two houses are better than one because they protect against hasty decisions. Three, four, or more legislative chambers would be even better if that is your goal. To my knowledge, Nebraska has not enacted policy any smarter or dumber than 49 two-house states.

To me, the gravest threat to democratic progress and governmental efficacy is paralysis, not haste or recklessness. The people still have a governor who can veto; courts that can render rulings on the constitutionality of statutes; and future elections and legislators who can reverse bad decisions.

No Michigan county, city, township, or K-12 school system elects two or more legislative bodies. Why not? If it makes sense for state government, wouldn’t it be rational for local units to do so? The trickle-down philosophy behind the federal system extends to nearly all states, yet not their local jurisdictions. Was that because it looked clunky, confusing, and duplicative to have multiple bodies setting policy? Very likely

A unicameral state assembly has made sense since 1962. It would make smoother sailing for policy change with plenty of protection against nutty change through gubernatorial vetoes, court reviews, and future elections. It would lessen confusion among voters about who should be held accountable for legislative decisions, their senator or their representative or both. It would marginalize those frequent, petty squabbles between the members; the aura, turf, and legitimacy of each chamber; and those persistent “look at who’s angling for your seat” shenanigans

......
Two legislative chambers in Lansing slow down policy change. They cause unnecessary friction in serving the customers of democracy. Two legislative chambers are anachronistic.

As much as I think there are too many salaries and politicians in government, I can't go along with this. The big reason is that I prefer slow change to rush jobs. We need checks and balances, and eliminating a check and balance on a level the size of the state or federal government is a risk I don't think we need to take. Bad laws often pass one chamber. They normally don't get taken up in the other. Sometimes good laws pass and don't taken up in the other chamber. That's a price I'm willing to pay, along with the salaries. We'd have a lot more taxes and spending if there was a unicameral legislature.

Two columns that are very interesting that I haven't thought about are regarding two members per seat and parliament. Regarding two members per seat

Can you handle two people representing you in the state legislature?

Picture that voters in each district send to a single legislative body the two highest vote getters in the general election. Each gets a percentage of a single vote on the state Assembly’s floor equal to the percentage of the vote s/he received in the last election.

For example, Assemblyperson Judith, a Democrat, garners 55 percent of the vote against her Republican challenger, John, who receives 45 percent. Judith gets 0.55 percent of one vote on the Assembly floor; Raymond gets 0.45.

What’s the point of this? Parties, if rational, would nominate candidates who can maximize the general election vote; presumably, nominees would appeal to independents and folks who tilt toward the other party. We would get more moderate, less sharply partisan people in the legislature. Currently, in so many safely Democratic or Republican areas, rabid partisans nominate the most extreme candidates.

All political parties would strive to mount strong challenges in all districts. There is little point, today, for a Republican to run in a Detroit district or a Democrat to run in Ottawa County. They are sacrificial lambs. If, however, the two leading vote-getters get seated, Republicans shrewdly would contest Detroit districts (and Democrats, Ottawa County seats) because even a small percentage of the vote would give the loser some clout in Lansing.

I don't think it would pass the one person one vote standard under federal constitutional law (Equal protection). That aside, it's an interesting concept. Democrats in state rep districts usually get 28-40 percent of the vote here in Livingston County based-races. I think Donna Anderson got almost 40% in her race against Valde Garcia in 2006, mostly due to running almost even in the Ingham County portion of the state senate district. I haven't researched or thought about this idea to have a strong opinion one way or the other. It has advantages and disadvantages. However, one thing it would not change is that candidates need to fit the district.

I couldn't disagree more with the parliamentary system, for the same reasons I opposed a unicameral legislature. This is a case of different philosophies. As Ruff says in Parliament Works Better:

Previous columns have called for a unicameral legislature with two members elected in each district, each with a legislative vote equal to the share of the popular vote. In case readers view that as too timid, I propose that Michigan adopt a parliamentary system.
When then-Lieutenant Governor Jim Brickley chastised me for thinking small about America’s policy making machinery and its flaws, he said: “Our system’s antiquated. The fear of a throne drove the constitution’s framers to shackle the public will. Today, I fear the tyranny of paralysis.”

Judicial appointments, which Ruff supports,  are something I can not support. Judicial appointments by chief executives I support even less. It goes back to my Jeffersonian views when it comes to checks and balances. I've seen way too many political appointments run roughshod over the constitution with judicial activism. It is nothing new. It goes back to Dred Scot, and really rears its ugly head post-reconstruction. Slaughter-House, Cruikshank, Plessy, Presser, and Lochner. After FDR gets his people, we get Wickard v Filburn. Brown v Board of Education was the right judgment, but should have been written better on clear 14th Amendment grounds. With the Burger Court onward - Roe and Doe kickstarted judicial activism. Then we get the baffling O'Connor with her look to foreign laws with Gratz and Grutter cases. I may get flamed, but Bush V Gore wasn't all that great either - although SCOTUS wasn't AS bad as Florida's Supreme Court on that one. Both could have done better.

State courts aren't perfect, and neither are electing judges. He uses the Irish judges stereotype. As he says "Erin wins."

Democratic adrenaline drives people to assume that their sheer act of voting produces judicial competence. Excuse me as I try to hold back from projectile vomiting. I do not buy the pretense that voters actually know enough to judge judicial candidates.
Aside from a smattering of partisan, special interest, or personal adherents, few honestly can defend Michigan’s politically charged system of picking judges. Running successfully for judgeships are people with good solid names (once in a blue moon has a Cavanagh/Cavanaugh, Kelley/Kelly, Corrigan, Hathaway, or Mc-something lost a judicial race) and often have good track records winning other elections, i.e., have name recognition, fundraising abilities, and solid organizational bases.
Are these political assets judicial assets?

That's true. Brennan.

He goes on, but his proposal isn't as bad as most "appoint judges" proposals I've seen. It's similar to the Missouri system.

Since the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate’s rejection of Robert Bork in 1987, presidential appointees all have been nondescript ciphers or ideological purists. I was disgusted by the U.S. Senate’s rejection of Bork, among the most cerebral and intellectually inquisitive people a president has sought to place on the U.S. Supreme Court since Woodrow Wilson nominated Louis Brandeis. Since Bork’s rejection, every nominee has faced sharply partisan and ideological badgering in the Senate.
Call me an elitist, but here is a plan to award critically important judicial posts to the well-deserving. The governor appoints every state judge or justice to a term of 10 years. The governor must select from three highly/exceptionally qualified people recommended by the State Bar Association. The governor selects one, or if the governor rejects all three, the State Bar Association nominates three more candidates, one of whom the governor must pick. The nomination goes to the state Senate, where it takes a two-thirds super-majority to reject.
Upon appointment, the judge or justice must seek voters’ approval at the next general election. The referendum before voters is, “Do you wish to retain Judge/Justice _______ in office or not?” If a plurality votes “yes,” the judge may serve out the 10-year term. If a plurality votes “no,” the judge vacates the office, and the appointment process starts over.
While a sitting judge may be renominated and reappointed for a second 10-year term, voters still must ratify the choice at the next election. After 20 years, a person may not win reappointment to the same bench. A judge who reaches the age of 70 must retire.

I prefer a choice of names instead of an up or down vote, but at least that has a check and balance. I'd rather have it be as it is now, flawed as it is. I also think that Supreme Nominations should be the same process as appeals court nominations is now (not party nominated - straight up elections or appointment of vacancy and election).  I don't want the State Bar of Michigan however getting involved in this. You can't take ideology out of judicial selections in the post Lochner and Post Roe eras. It is a requirement for attorneys to join the State Bar of Michigan, which is understandable. It is best that the State Bar is removed at least from direct politics - on either side.

Lastly is the Fusion ballot. This is similar to the New York style of system.

Imagine a ballot on which you may vote for a candidate under several party lines. You may like a candidate because he or she is identified on the ballot as a Democrat or Republican, our safe, big-tent binary choices. You may like a candidate who is a conservative, liberal, libertarian, or socialist. Personally, you hold a value of right-to-life or pro-choice. You demand that government cuts taxes or increases them to maintain and expand public services. You are willing to sacrifice jobs for a cleaner environment, or you prefer to sacrifice a cleaner environment for more jobs.
Craig runs for the state Senate. Democrats have nominated him. So, too, have the Liberal Party, the Right-to-Life Party, the Environment Protection Party, and the Friends of Transportation Party. You may cast a vote for him under any party line, and come election evening, the clerk totals every vote for Craig under every party. Craig loses to Sally because she has gathered more votes combined cast for her on Independent, Republican, Economic Growth, Pro Choice, and Champions of Less Regulation partisan lines.
This is called fusion. More than one political party may nominate and endorse the same candidate as other parties. In the end, their votes for Craig and Sally are combined.
What is the advantage of a fusion ballot? Voters get to express a more customized opinion, but do not have to throw away their votes on a candidate who cannot win. A voter may be voting for Craig because he opposes abortions. Another may vote for him because he is a staunch environmentalist. Yet another may prefer him because he pledges to put more funding into transportation. Many people will vote for Craig because he carries the brand of Democrat. The voter gets the right to express a specialized or brand name opinion of Craig, but is not forced to waste a vote on a candidate who has no chance in hell of being elected. When the final tally is in, Craig or Sally goes to the state legislature more bound to specific values than general pabulum.
If you are a Republican candidate in what otherwise is a pretty safely Democratic district, you might work hard to peel off some Democratic voters by being pro-choice, pro-environment, and/or pro-transportation funding. Similarly, a Democrat running in a safely Republican district may win the backing of Right-to-Lifers, economic free marketers, and smaller government types. Fusion ballots encourage candidates to niche market, while also being part of a big tent.
.....
A recent example comes from Long Island’s Nassau County. In a race for county executive, the Democrat won 107,777 votes as a Democrat. The Republican won 112,340 votes as a Republican. The Democrat also won 10,334 votes from minor parties; the Republican, 5,534. The Democrat holds a razor-thin lead of 118,111 to 117,874, with thousands of absentee ballots yet to be counted. A Conservative Party candidate won 9,552 votes. Clearly, had the local Conservative Party leaders felt comfortable in nominating the Republican, the GOP candidate would have won pretty handily. They didn’t. He didn’t.
John Lindsay won reelection as New York City mayor in 1969. He had been elected mayor in 1965 as the nominee of the Republican and Liberal parties. In 1969, he lost the GOP primary for mayor, but managed to win reelection as a Liberal. A year later, James Buckley ran for the U.S. Senate in New York State under the Conservative Party banner. He beat the liberal Republican incumbent and a liberal Democrat challenger. For three years, neither the mayor of New York City nor one of the state’s U.S. senators held office as a Republican or Democrat.

Although a correction is in order as the Republican won in Nassau County.

I can support this. I like the ideas of minor and major parties supporting the same tickets when it is called for.
However, I don’t think the NY style will affect things much. Every senate race since Buckley was an R or D. Every house race there I’ve followed has been the same way. I’m less sure about state house and state senate.

The only possible thing I can really see is the occasional split leading to a minor upset like there was in NY-23 when the GOP leadership blundered in a big way by choosing a candidate in DeDe Scozzafava that did not fit that district (and neither did Doug Hoffman for that matter on the Conservative party ballot). NY-23 was an aberration however because there was no primary.

Under the NY system here, you’d probably have the conservative party/R fusions in Zeeland, the Right to Life/R fusions in Livingston County, and Gun Rights/party fusions in those areas, but it would be the same people winning.

If people want moderate candidates, moderates need to vote in the primaries. I don’t see things changing otherwise. So while I support the fusion system, I don’t see it changing the ideological factor much in elections.

All in all, Dome Magazine has some good reads on different political news and commentary in Lansing. The series of con-con and proposal discussion is one of them. It doesn't change my mind, but the issues themselves were worth looking over.

Argus pushing for consitutional convention in 2010

There's been a push for a constitutional convention (con-con) by a small, but influential group of Lansing elites and their followers. This has been going on for the last three years. I'm strongly opposed to opening Pandora's Box here. The Argus fails to make a solid case for it here. In fact this is one of the sloppiest editorials I've ever seen from the Argus

Some background - I've been aware of the con-con push since December of 2006, almost exactly three years ago.

Heads up! Property Tax Raisers want to change Michigan's Constitution and eliminate safeguards - 12-13-2006

This group of Lansing insiders, elitists, and termed out legislators (Frank Kelley, Joe Schwarz, Harry Gast, Phil Power, Debbie Dingell, and John Hertel) had their agenda they wanted to push. They did not like constitutional amendments, Headlee's protection on property taxes, term limits (I agree with that aspect), give the governor much more power, raise taxes, eliminate recalls, and end elections of judges and university trustees. That was as of 2006.

The issue died down, at least in public until July 2008. There was a debate on the Right Michigan website on this issue between myself (oppose), Dennis Lennox (support), and Chet Zarko (opposed).

July 10, 2008 - Michigan does not need a constitutional convention

August 12, 2008 - Updated

I rehashed the reasons listed in 2006, but Zarko caught something that reminds me what assume means. Ass-u-me.

In the Right Michigan post, I also missed one reason more than any other why it needs to be opposed. Outside Lansing and Oakland Politics blogger Chetly Zarko pointed it out. He said this.

I agree with RM here, with this addition, copied from my response to DL on his item.
The RMGN debacle is evidence of what bad can come from convention.

Special interests will own the delegates, particularly since the Dems are sitting on the reform Marty Knollenberg proposed in Oct. 2007 that I pointed out to him last year. The Michigan Campaign Finance Act of 1977 forgot - understandably due to the rareness of conventions - to include delegates in reporting category defintions. And limit definitions.

Democrats - I'm calling Ward Connerly if there's a convention and there no law to say he can't give me one giant donation, which I'd never have to report. And I will run if there is a Con-Con, despite my hatred for it - largely to protect MCRI, but also to protect the initiative process, Headlee, and all that the people have earned in the last 40 years in at least marginally checking government excess.

Republicans - Stryker nightmare.

It's not individual candidates that evade the radar - its the potential for competing blocs of "sponsored" candidates. A Herculean battle would occur.

You think the raw costs of a convention in terms of administrative costs, staff, space, etc. are high. The political costs, and the subtle changes that can only ultimately favor the elite power interests since they are best positioned, are huge.

Fight both the Con RMGN and the Con of the Con-Con.

That is something I missed completely and is why the word assume makes an ass of "u" and me. I assumed these are covered by the campaign finance laws. Nope. Billionire radical Jon Stryker can dump his billions into these races without anyone knowing. He can also call his sister out of state so she can dump her billions. All the Lansing and DC interests can dump their money, and George Soros himself could dump money in there, without any one of us knowing about that. All those that want to increase our taxes, earmark spending, grab our guns, criminalize certain speech (Colorado just did it), and do whatever they can think of if they can get their people in there.

April 09, The Argus had an editorial written by Rich Perlberg on this, who at the time hid his cards. I commented on that  here

Literally, all of this is on the table, and that doesn't mention safeguards on taxes. That's on the table. When it comes to state law, the Michigan Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is checked only by the US Constitution.

In addition to that, who knows for a fact what laws govern elections of constitutional delegates? Under the current campaign finance laws and election laws, this is an unknown. They did not include the position of "constitution delegate" in their laws because it is so rare. This last happened in 1963. The campaign finance laws were post Watergate, 1977.

Soon after Perlberg's April editorial, I posted what was at risk. In short. Everything.

Trial by jury for some misdemeanors, racial preferences, human cloning and embryonic research, recalls, elections of judicial officers, safeguards requiring that all bills are one subject (as compared to the federal government), death penalty, election of attorney general and secretary of state, property tax safeguards, eminent domain (Michigan is much more restrictive than the feds), collective bargaining provisions for police officers, and that's not getting to gun control, abortion, vouchers, and those issues, as well as the policy for amending the constitution.

Also in April, Terri Land pushed for safeguards regarding the con-con in case it passes. Those were ignored by the legislature.

Land wanted to require delegates to be citizens and residents of the district, wanted to set the primary election in February and general in May, establish policy of delegates to be the same as state rep/state senate provisions, make the term of office the 2010 and  not 2012 boundaries addressing redistricting changes, vacancies of delegates much be of same political party as elected, require 2/3 vote for removal, and most importantly place delegates under authority of campaign finance laws. Right now, we don't know how it works.
----

That finally gets us to the Argus editorial. From the Argus

Voters should start giving consideration to calling for a state constitutional convention when it is placed on the ballot next November.

It's a risky ploy. The writing of a constitution opens the door for all sorts of mischief. You can be sure there will be efforts by out-of-state interests who want to push for social issues including gun control, abortion, capital punishment, gay marriage and state-funded vouchers.
..............
Normally, we would agree. But there comes a time when you have to seriously question if the unknown hazards of a new constitution could be any worse that the terrible slide we've seen in the state since the constitution was last rewritten and ratified in 1963.

The first question that needs to be asked is this. What is the problem in Lansing? Is it the constitution, a small part of the constitution, or is it the people in Lansing. To correct the first needs a con-con, but the second can be corrected by an amendment, and the last can be corrected by a simple election.

More:

Can you blame state leaders for this economic failure? Of course not. But it is clear that the state has changed dramatically since the constitution was last changed 36 years ago. It is also clear that Lansing is impotent when it comes to creating — much less executing — a long-term plan to combat the new realities.Instead of solutions, we get constant bickering and partisan grandstanding. Republicans say no to anything resembling new taxes or revenue; Democrats stand in force against meaningful spending reform.

The Argus blames the people. That can't be corrected with a con-con. In fact, a con-con would make it worse if the problem is the current legislature. Why? Because delegates are elected in the same districts as the legislators. A con-con is a partisan election, with primary and general. In fact, it will be more hard-edged than normal because it is a special election with lower turnout. The Argus blew away its own theory with its reasoning.

t's hard to imagine a rewritten constitution that could provide a worse government than what we have now.

I find it easy to imagine it being worse. Put the current people instead of circa 1963 people in charge of creating a constitution. The Argus then puts its own recommendations.

Get rid of term limits. It hasn't worked.

That can be done by amendment.

Adopt a graduated state income tax.

I highly disagree, but that can also be done by amendment.

Require balanced budgets. Fire all lawmakers and the governor if they fail to make the deadline. Ban them from the public payroll — including lobbying — for life. We don't need failures.

Balanced budgets are already required.

Consider a unicameral legislature.

Mixed views.  The good and bad with this is that it makes bills easier to pass. Good bills can pass, but so can horrific bills. Bicameral legislatures check and balance each other so horrible crap does not get through.

Revamp and reduce the number of K-12 and county intermediate school districts.

A con-con is not needed for that. Districts can decide that on their own.  In fact they should. That is something that should be a policy issue and not at the heart of the structure of the state government.

Provide a cap on state employee benefits.End tenure.

Both of those can be done by contracts.  It's a policy issue, not a structural issue.

Provide a voucher system that will allow parents to reward effective schools.

The Argus mentions their worries about special interests. Then they do the same thing they warn about with special interests here. I'm not against vouchers, but that is not something that should be in the constitution - the structure of government.

Provide constitutional protection for greater funding for high-poverty communities.

Why should this be in the constitution?

End the election of judges.

HELL NO. Right now we need more checks and balances on government power than ever before. 

Create a nonpartisan commission to redraw state and national legislative districts.

I don't like the current system on redistricting, but I don't like commissions here. I addressed that in the past. If donkeys and elephants pick the "nonpartisan" commission, expect even more entrenched incumbents. I'd rather have computer generated maps with limited breakpoints (County/City/Township). I don't support nonpartisan redistricting. I support nonBIASED redistricting. There is a BIG difference.

Make all elections nonpartisan.

That's how it is in much of Nebraska.However, nobody here is stopping non-partisan candidates from running for any office in Michigan. They just don't win.

Crazy ideas? Unworkable? Maybe. But are any of them worse than what we live with now?

That was a sloppy and poor editorial with poor reasoning. They didn't do their homework.

Most of those ideas don't need a con-con. Even when it comes to "nonpartisn elections," they are only partisan because the people want them to be. Independents can run with no party affiliation. They don't win. People vote for democrats or republicans in most cases. I have voted for 3rd party candidates in the past, and none of them  have won.

The Argus does not mention why a con-con is the best vehicle for these reforms, and also does not mention anything about the rules of the game involved in a con-con. In short, if the voters approve a con-con in 2010, there will be a partisan election to determine who the delegates will be. The delegates will then write a new constitution with everything, literally everything on the table, subject to these approximately 150 one-termers that do not ever have to face the people again.

In addition, we do not know if delegates are subject to Michigan's campaign finance laws. I assume not. They are not specifically mentioned in the election laws. That means we probably have no idea who is funding the delegates, and if there is any disclosure. Jon Stryker is a billionaire and is the bankroller of the democrats here in Michigan. Expect millions to come flying in from Stryker, Soros, out of state interests, and the like. This is the holy grail of power, and they know that.

While we may win big, especially in 2010 with Obama and Granholm's piss poor job, we may also lose everything as well. I don't like that risk with the constitution. It should not be messed with more than it absolutely has to be.

Secretary of State proposes Constitutional Convention procedures

A major press release came out from the Secretary of State's office regarding the upcoming con-con on the ballot. I'll need to see the exact language before giving final opinions, but this is a good start for discussion purposes and brings this front and center. We do not know if this will be needed or not, but we do know that the con-con WILL be on the ballot in 2010. It may pass or fail, but we need to prepare like it will pass, regardless of our feelings on this one way or the other.

Legislation being drafted to put process in place

Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land is proposing legislation to establish procedures for a possible Constitutional Convention, a move that prepares Michigan if next year voters call for one.

Voters decide every 16 years whether a convention will be convened to revise Michigan's Constitution. The question will be on the Nov. 2, 2010 general election ballot. While minor provisions regarding a convention remain in law, procedures for electing delegates and convening a convention were repealed in 1967. Land's proposal ensures that a process is in place should the ballot question be approved.

"A recent pattern of attempts to amend sections of the constitution indicates a strong possibility of calling for a convention," Land said. "Establishing a process ahead of time lays the groundwork for an effective, well-run convention if one is needed."

Under the constitution's provisions, the convention would begin work in 2011. It would consist of 148 delegates -- one from each state Senate and state House district. State legislators currently in office are precluded from serving as delegates.

There's the background. That means there will be possibly three delegates from Livingston County. One for the Bill Rogers district, one from the Cindy Denby District, and Valde Garcia's district which also covers Shiawassee and part of Ingham County.

The proposals are as follows.

Requires convention delegates to be U.S. citizens and qualified electors of the delegate district.

A no brainer.

Sets the primary election date for delegate candidates on the regular February election date, and the general election on the regular May date.

This is needed to comply with existing law. Elections are possible four days a year, and the convention is scheduled for July as given in the State Constitution. The only possible dates for this election are February and May. While this is a relatively uncontroversial proposal, it's a must. Unfortunately, the existing law is also not as specific as I'd like it regarding the primary procedures, and I'd like to see this be a primary election instead of a convention or county party choice system.

Establishes delegate nominating petition or filing fee procedures similar to those for state senators and representatives. Candidate write-in and withdrawal procedures also are included.

This is something that isn't covered at all and is how it should be.

Requires the convention to convene at noon on the second Tuesday in July 2011. The convention continues until its final adjournment.
Makes the term of office for delegates coincide with the convention, regardless of boundary changes resulting from any potential redistricting.

Also important, although I'd be careful in how this is drafted. When will redistricting be?

Requires the Secretary of State to call the convention to order and preside over it until a convention president is elected.

Not a big deal on controversy, just a simple procedure.

Specifies that when vacancies occur due to resignation or other reasons, the governor must appoint a resident of the same district and political party as the delegate who is vacating the position.

I don't like gubenatorial appointments, but that is probably the best that can be done given the current laws in place. This is an improvement (governor appoints all vacancies, period).

Requires a two-thirds vote by the entire delegation to remove a delegate from office. It also establishes recount and recall provisions similar to those for state senators and representatives.

I need to check current law on this before I comment. I like 2/3, but I'd restrict it further to misconduct or no-shows.(outside of recall provisions). 2/3 should be a safeguard against that.

Compensates the president and delegates with mileage reimbursement for one round trip per week when the convention is in session.

Mixed views.

Puts delegates and committees under Michigan's Campaign Finance Act. Contribution limits are similar to those for state lawmakers within appropriate timelines. It also puts delegates under the Lobby Act as lobbyable public officials.
Land will work with lawmakers to have the legislation introduced once drafting is completed.

This is the major provision. Right now, it is not known whether delegate candidates fall under the campaign finance act. That's an open question depending on a few technicalities.

Now I want to close out this mentioning one thing. These are proposals, not law, and may not be the provisions passed. The legislature needs to be watched like a hawk on which provisions are being considered. This is the biggest issue on the ballot since 1994 - which was the last time a con-con was on the ballot (Every 16 years). If this passes, there will be a new constitution in Michigan. The State Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land here (second only to the US Constitution). Literally everything is on the line, regarding every issue. This is the Holy Grail of power.
I posted the other day a small sample of what is in stake with a con-con.

The con-con needs to be defeated, but we need to prepare for its passing so we are not caught offguard in February.

What is at risk at a Constitutional Convention?

One thing I keep saying in my strong opposition to a Constitutional Convention is that literally everything is on the table. I don't think that gets the point across as much as it should since I realized that most people haven't read the Constitution of the State of Michigan which was enacted in 1963.

You can find it here (hopefully, the link works) or through a couple of clicks from Michiganlegislature.org.

If a con-con passes, all of our state level safeguards is at risk including:

Article 1 - sec 6 Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

The Supreme Court has not yet incorporated the 2nd Amendment to the states through the 14th Amendment's equal protection or due process clauses.

Article 1, sec 20 In every criminal prosecution, the accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, which may consist of less than 12 jurors in prosecutions for misdemeanors punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year; to be informed of the nature of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him or her; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his or her favor; to have the assistance of counsel for his or her defense; to have an appeal as a matter of right, except as provided by law an appeal by an accused who pleads guilty or nolo contendere shall be by leave of the court; and as provided by law, when the trial court so orders, to have such reasonable assistance as may be necessary to perfect and prosecute an appeal.

This is more in depth trial by jury than federal constitution.

Article 1, sec 26 26 Affirmative action programs.
Sec. 26.

(1) The University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State University, and any other public college or university, community college, or school district shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

(2) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

(3) For the purposes of this section "state" includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the state itself, any city, county, any public college, university, or community college, school district, or other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State of Michigan not included in sub-section 1.

(4) This section does not prohibit action that must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, if ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the state.

(5) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex that are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

(6) The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the injured party's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of Michigan anti-discrimination law.

(7) This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with the United States Constitution or federal law, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that the United States Constitution and federal law permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.

(8) This section applies only to action taken after the effective date of this section.

(9) This section does not invalidate any court order or consent decree that is in force as of the effective date of this section.

Affirmative Action is no more. The left will want to change that.

Article 1, section § 27 Human embryo and embryonic stem cell research.
Section 27.

(1) Nothing in this section shall alter Michigan’s current prohibition on human cloning.

(2) To ensure that Michigan citizens have access to stem cell therapies and cures, and to ensure that physicians and researchers can conduct the most promising forms of medical research in this state, and that all such research is conducted safely and ethically, any research permitted under federal law on human embryos may be conducted in Michigan, subject to the requirements of federal law and only the following additional limitations and requirements:

(a) No stem cells may be taken from a human embryo more than fourteen days after cell division begins; provided, however, that time during which an embryo is frozen does not count against this fourteen day limit.

(b) The human embryos were created for the purpose of fertility treatment and, with voluntary and informed consent, documented in writing, the person seeking fertility treatment chose to donate the embryos for research; and

(i) the embryos were in excess of the clinical need of the person seeking the fertility treatment and would otherwise be discarded unless they are used for research; or

(ii) the embryos were not suitable for implantation and would otherwise be discarded unless they are used for research.

(c) No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human embryos for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures.

(d) All stem cell research and all stem cell therapies and cures must be conducted and provided in accordance with state and local laws of general applicability, including but not limited to laws concerning scientific and medical practices and patient safety and privacy, to the extent that any such laws do not:

(i) prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures that are permitted by the provisions of this section; or

(ii) create disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with such research or therapies or cures.

(3) Any provision of this section held unconstitutional shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.

History: Add. Init., approved Nov. 4, 2008, Eff. Dec. 19, 2008

This was prop 2. I hate this law, but those who support this are risking it by voting for a con-con.

Article 2, sec 8 - Sec. 8.

Laws shall be enacted to provide for the recall of all elective officers except judges of courts of record upon petition of electors equal in number to 25 percent of the number of persons voting in the last preceding election for the office of governor in the electoral district of the officer sought to be recalled. The sufficiency of any statement of reasons or grounds procedurally required shall be a political rather than a judicial question.

Recalls are a check and balance against the government. They are at risk with a con-con. Article 2, sec 9 provides for ballot iniatitives and referendums. Article 2, sec 10 is term limits. I don't like them, but many do, and that's at risk with a con-con. I'd support changing them by amendment. (which is also at risk with a con-con)

Article 4, sec 24 - No law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title. No bill shall be altered or amended on its passage through either house so as to change its original purpose as determined by its total content and not alone by its title.
Sec. 25. No law shall be revised, altered or amended by reference to its title only. The section or sections of the act altered or amended shall be re-enacted and published at length.

A guard against Surprises. That's at risk.

Article 4, Section 46 - No law shall be enacted providing for the penalty of death.

If you oppose the death penalty, that's at risk with a con-con.

Article 5, section 21 - The governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state and attorney general shall be elected for four-year terms at the general election in each alternate even-numbered year.

The lieutenant governor, secretary of state and attorney general shall be nominated by party conventions in a manner prescribed by law. In the general election one vote shall be cast jointly for the candidates for governor and lieutenant governor nominated by the same party.

Vacancies in the office of the secretary of state and attorney general shall be filled by appointment by the governor.

Do you want to be able to elect the Attorney General and Secretart of State offices? That's at risk. Some want to have the governor appoint everything.

Article VI, sec 2 - The supreme court shall consist of seven justices elected at non-partisan elections as provided by law. The term of office shall be eight years and not more than two terms of office shall expire at the same time. Nominations for justices of the supreme court shall be in the manner prescribed by law. Any incumbent justice whose term is to expire may become a candidate for re-election by filing an affidavit of candidacy, in the form and manner prescribed by law, not less than 180 days prior to the expiration of his term.

Do you want to still be able to elect judges? I do, despite the last election results.

I can go on and on. Article VII sec 11 limits county debt. Article VII sec 21 limits taxes of cities/villages for "municipal purposes". Section 26 prohibits cities from loaning credit for any private interest. Section 32 requires local governments to have public hearings before a budget is enacted. Article IX, sec 8 exempts food from sales tax. Sec 9 limites gas tax to transportation. Section 23 allows for the books to be open for inspection. Section 24 protects pensions (which is why the MEA is probably against a con-con)

Section 25 deserves special mention.

Property taxes and other local taxes and state taxation and spending may not be increased above the limitations specified herein without direct voter approval. The state is prohibited from requiring any new or expanded activities by local governments without full state financing, from reducing the proportion of state spending in the form of aid to local governments, or from shifting the tax burden to local government. A provision for emergency conditions is established and the repayment of voter approved bonded indebtedness is guaranteed. Implementation of this section is specified in Sections 26 through 34, inclusive, of this Article.

All of those are at risk.

Section 35 is the trust fund for natural resources. That is at risk. So is the Veterans trust fund. Section 37. Section 40 - natural resources.

Article X, section 2 limits eminent domation.

Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation therefore being first made or secured in a manner prescribed by law. If private property consisting of an individual’s principal residence is taken for public use, the amount of compensation made and determined for that taking shall be not less than 125% of that property’s fair market value, in addition to any other reimbursement allowed by law. Compensation shall be determined in proceedings in a court of record.

“Public use” does not include the taking of private property for transfer to a private entity for the purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues. Private property otherwise may be taken for reasons of public use as that term is understood on the effective date of the amendment to this constitution that added this paragraph.

In a condemnation action, the burden of proof is on the condemning authority to demonstrate, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the taking of a private property is for a public use, unless the condemnation action involves a taking for the eradication of blight, in which case the burden of proof is on the condemning authority to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the taking of that property is for a public use. (146)

Any existing right, grant, or benefit afforded to property owners as of November 1, 2005, whether provided by this section, by statute, or otherwise, shall be preserved and shall not be abrogated or impaired by the constitutional amendment that added this paragraph.

That is only A STATE PROTECTION. Poletown was overruled a few years back by the conservative Supreme Court. It was later codified in this constitutional amendment. The codified part is at risk with a con-con.

Article XI, section 5 allows for collective bargaining for the MSP troopers and sgts.

Article XII, section 1 provides for Amendments.

There's plenty more there, and that doesn't even get into judicial interpretation of these laws. Everything is literally at risk with a con-con. Liberals and conservatives alike have a lot to lose.

Perlberg Argus editorial on Constitutional Convention

One issue I'm following closely is the Constitutional Convention issue for 2010. On the ballot will be a question of a con-con. Quite simply, if it passes, there will be a new constitution in Michigan, with literally everything on the table.

I am 100% against a con-con for reasons I explained here and here. This mentions what can be done in a constitution covention and how delegates to the convention are chosen.

Rich Perlberg seems to have a few concerns as well on this, although he hides his cards to his views on a con-con. Interestingly, both the MEA and the Chamber have their guards up.

The vote takes place in November 2010. If the statewide proposal passes, then a convention of 148 delegates will be elected to draft a new version of the state's constitution, last rewritten in 1963. The new version will be submitted to voters, who will give it the ultimate thumbs-up or thumbs-down.

Next year's vote is embedded in the Michigan Constitution and must take place every 16 years. The last two votes — in 1978 and 1994 — were overwhelmingly defeated. There are a number of folks who hope next year's results will be similar.

Some unlikely allies, such as the state's most influential business organization and Michigan's largest teachers' union, are already stoking the fires of opposition.

He then goes on to the real concerns.

The MEA and the state chamber are on more solid ground when they argue that a constitution works best when it's not frequently and radically changed. The document that governs our nation has withstood the test of time for more than 200 years with only 27 amendments.

The big worry for Rich Studley, president of the state chamber, and Ed Sarpolus, government affairs director of the MEA, is the Pandora's box of issues that could be on the table with a constitutional convention.

All of a sudden, all sorts of emotional issues are at play: abortion, gay marriage, capital punishment, affirmative action, school vouchers, gun rights, prayer in school, judicial elections, marijuana decriminalization, and so on.

The advent of any one of these issues by itself would bring in out-of-state money and influence. Think of the circus — and unintended consequences — if all are in play simultaneously.

Literally, all of this is on the table, and that doesn't mention safeguards on taxes. That's on the table. When it comes to state law, the Michigan Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is checked only by the US Constitution.

In addition to that, who knows for a fact what laws govern elections of constitutional delegates? Under the current campaign finance laws and election laws, this is an unknown. They did not include the position of "constitution delegate" in their laws because it is so rare. This last happened in 1963. The campaign finance laws were post Watergate, 1977.

I will say this. If this does pass and if I'm still in state which I hope to be, I will be running as a Republican (it's a partisan office) for delegate for one of the two positions (they mirror the legislature positions). I will file the day after election day. I will be planning this long before election day just in case it does pass.

We need to be prepared just in case this does pass. The last thing I would want to see is a bunch of radicals elected as delegates thanks to Jon Stryker's money and organization. We can't control his money, but we can control our own organization.