Proposal 1, if passed, would:
• Evaluate the financial situations of local governments, including school districts
• Allow the governor to assign an emergency manager if these governments are in a financial emergency
• The EM would make executive decisions over the government
• The EM would develop financial and operating plans, which could include changing or getting rid of contracts, rearranging the local government and determining costs, services and use of resources until the financial emergency is over
• Allow a state-appointed (appointed by state government, not elected) review team to enter the local governments instead of an EM if needed
Argument to vote yes:
• “This is a tool that is in place in order to give an early warning indicator to provide for additional help and security for schools and cities that fall into financial distress,” Michigan Lieutenant Governor Brian Calley said in a statement.
Argument to vote no:
• “This is just a power grab by politicians in Lansing,” Stand Up to Democracy’s website said. “Political opponents of local officials don’t have to beat them in elections. They can just get [Michigan] Gov. [Rick] Snyder and politicians in Lansing to take away power and put their people in place, people who support their political agenda – not the needs of people in the community. We need our leaders to come together to find solutions, not take away voting rights and strip decision-making power from local communities.”
Proposal 2, if passed, would:
• Give all employees the constitutional right to collectively bargain through unions
• Not allow state or local laws to limit employees’ rights to join unions and bargain collectively
• It will allow unions to negotiate and enforce collective bargaining agreements, including allowing employees to financially support their labor unions
• Laws may still be passed to prevent public employees from striking
• Get rid of state laws that regulate hours and conditions of employment, but only if the laws conflict with collective bargaining agreements
• Define “employer” as a person or company with at least one employee
Argument to vote yes:
• “This election season has been marred by more false advertising than I’ve ever seen,” Michigan Senator Carl Levin said in a statement. “Proposal 2 is about assuring workers that they can bargain about wages and benefits and working conditions. It gives fire fighters and police officers a voice to ensure that they have the right equipment, and staffing to keep themselves and our communities safe. The right of employees to bargain collectively is fundamental. It is appropriate for it to be in the Michigan Constitution, and I urge a yes vote on Proposal 2.”
• “Women in unions experience a much smaller pay gap than women in nonunion settings,” the Michigan National Organization for Women on Protect Working Family’s website said. “Unionization helps to reduce sex-based wage discrimination. Collective bargaining rights have helped union women to earn almost 34 percent more than nonunion women.”
Argument to vote no:
• “Union bosses are attempting to virtually rewrite our constitution to give themselves more power,” the Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution website said. “It would repeal upwards of 80 current laws, bring on dozens of unintended consequences and cost you a bundle.”
• “Proposition 2 overturns laws that keep our kids safe at school, repeals laws that require background checks for teachers . . . now that’s frightening,” Nick De Leeuw, spokesman for Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution, said in a statement.
Proposition 3, if passed, would:
• Require electric companies to provide at least 25 percent of the electricity they sell to come from renewable energy resources by 2025, defining renewable energy sources as wind, solar, biomass and hydropower
• Ensure that electric companies increase their cost to costumers by no more than 1 percent per year
• Allow for time extensions of the 2025 deadline in order to prevent companies from exceeding the 1 percent increase in cost to consumers
• Force the government to make additional laws to encourage the use of Michigan equipment and employees
Argument to vote yes:
• “Proposal 3 will increase our state’s use of renewable energy, creating thousands of jobs for Michigan workers, attracting $10.3 billion in new investments to our state, reducing pollution in the air and water and significantly improving public health,” a statement on the Michigan Energy Michigan Jobs website said.
Argument to vote no:
• “Backers of the proposal claim it will create tens of thousands of jobs in green industries,” said an editorial in The Detroit News. “But there’s no credible way to predict such job creation; previous projections attached to green initiatives have fallen well short of the hoped-for employment.”
Proposal 4, if passed, would:
• Allow in-home care workers to collectively bargain with the Michigan Quality Home Care Counsel, and continue the exclusive representation of in-home care workers, unless labor laws overturn this
• Require MQHCC to provide training for in-home care workers, create registries of workers who have passed background checks and provide financial services to patients to help them manage the cost of in-home care
• Reserve patients’ rights to hire in-home care workers who are not a part of the registry of workers who have passed background checks, and bargain with the MQHCC
• Authorize MQHCC to set terms of employment and compensation standards
Argument to vote yes:
• “It’s a one-stop place for people to get their info . . . we know that we need more people to be living in their homes, more people want to be living in their homes and it’s less expensive. It’s a win-win-win on all fronts,” Scott Heinzman from ADAPT Michigan said in a statement.
Argument to vote no:
• “What this is about is roping those family care givers into a union . . . collective bargaining will allow a union to come in and skim millions of dollars from government subsidy checks without much in return,” said Anna Schieber from the Mackinac Center of Public Policy.
Proposal 5, if passed, would:
• Require a 2/3 majority vote from the state officials or a majority vote from the public, to allow the government to impose or increase new taxes on tax payers
• Not overturn any previous limitation made on taxes
Argument to vote yes:
• “Michigan needs provisions like a two-thirds supermajority before raising taxes so that jobs are not lost to neighboring states with lower taxes, like Indiana. Michigan already requires a three-fourths supermajority to raise the state educational property tax, which has saved Michigan taxpayers billions of dollars in property taxes since 1994,” reported the Michigan Alliance for Prosperity’s website.
Argument to vote no:
• “Here is how it would work: Even if 135 members of the Legislature voted in favor of closing a tax loophole, ending a special interest tax break, or creating a tax or raising a tax, just 13 senators could vote against it … and block it,” said Defend Michigan Democracy’s website.
Proposal 6, if passed, would:
• Require approval of international bridges and tunnels by a majority vote when the projects in question are using the State of Michigan funds, resources, land, designs, solicit bids or promotions
• Create a definition of “new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles” to mean “any bridge or tunnel which is not open to the public and serving traffic as of Jan. 1, 2012”
Argument to vote yes:
• “The bottom line is there is tremendous risk associated with committing public dollars to such a massive infrastructure project … With so much on the line for Michigan taxpayers, simple prudence demands that everyone whose tax dollars are at risk be given an opportunity for his or her voice to be heard,” said the People Should Decide Ballot Committee’s website.
Argument to vote no:
• “Proposal 6 is an attempt by one very special interest; a person who owns a bridge connecting two of the biggest trade partners in the world, Michigan and Canada. The person who owns that bridge desperately wants to avoid competition. Proposal 6 would seek to delay additional private sector investment to better connect Michigan to its most important trade partner,” said Lt. Gov. Brian Calley in a statement.
