CRITICAL DECISIONS
Voters consider statewide, local questions amid most impactful general election yet
Michigan voters will be asked to consider two statewide ballot proposals onNov. 3, while a handful ofMacomb County communities will also have ballot questions for residents to consider.
Statewide, voters will consider Proposal 20-1, which asks voters to consider a constitutional amendment to allow money fromoil and gasmining on stateowned lands to continue to be collected in state funds for land protection and creation and maintenance of parks, nature areas, and public recreation facilities; and to describe how money in those state funds can be spent. The proposal revises the formula for how state and local park funds from trusts can be spent.
According to the Citizens ResearchCouncil ofMichigan, if the proposal is rejected, theMichigan State Parks Endowment Fund (MSPEF) would continue to receive oil and gas bonuses, rentals, and royalties revenue annually until its principal balance reaches $800 million. This is not expected to occur for another three decades. After this time, all future oil and gas revenue would be distributed to the state general fund; lawmakers have the most discretion making appropriation decisions involving the General Fund. Annual interest and earnings of the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF) and the MSPEF would continue to be available for expenditure subject to legislative appropriation.
If the proposal is approved by voters, after theMSPEF principal balance reaches its $800 million ceiling, all future oil and gas revenue would be deposited in the MNRTF instead of the state general fund. The MNRTF’s current $500 million cap would be eliminated to allow future revenue to flow to this fund in perpetuity. The legislaturewould be allowed to appropriate up to 50 percent of the oil and gas revenue annually for MNRTF projects and the remainder of the revenue would be credited to the principal balance of the trust fund, thereby providing an ongoing revenue stream to allow the corpus of the fund to grow in perpetuity.
If adopted, the proposal would require at least 20% of endowment fund annual spending to go toward state park improvements and at least 25% of trust fund an
nual spending would have to go toward parks and public recreation areas with at least 25% toward land conservation.
Search warrants
A second statewide question is Proposal 20-2, which asks voters to consider proposed constitutional amendment to require a search warrant in order to access a person’s electronic data or electronic communications. The amendment would unreasonable searches or seizures of a person’s electronic data and electronic communications. It would also require a search warrant to access a person’s electronic data or electronic communications, under the same conditions currently required for the government to obtain a search warrant to search a person’s house or seize a person’s things.
According to the Citizens Research Council of Michigan, if adopted, the Michigan constitution would provide specific protections to electronic data and communications. Law enforcement would be required to obtain warrants to access information stored in these formats. If rejected, law enforcement would continue the current practice of seeking warrants to access electronic data and communications based on interpretation of the “Searches and Seizures” provision of the Michigan Constitution and the Bill of Rights in theU.S. Constitution.
The CRCOMsaid Article I of theMichiganConstitution contains many of the personal protections found in the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. While neither constitution explicitly protects electronic data and communications, Michigan law enforcement agencies mostly treat this information the same as the protections for “persons, houses, papers, and effects/possessions” found in the U.S. and state constitutions. Proposal 2 attempts to remove any ambiguity.
Local municipal questions
Locally, the city ofMemphis will ask voters to consider a proposal to increase to the Constitutional limit the amount of taxes on taxable property in one year to raise money for police protection. The proposal would raise taxes by up to
2.9871 mills ($2.9871 per $1,000 of taxable value) for a period of six years from, 2021 through 2026. If approved and levied in full, the millage will raise approximately $80,460 in its first year whichwould only be used to provide police protection within the city.
In St. Clair Shores, voters will be asked to consider an amendment to the city charter regarding rules for public comment. The amendment would require a period of public comment of at least two minutes per person at regularly scheduled City Councilmeetings prior to officials voting on matters requiring a vote at such meeting. It would also require a second period of public comment near the conclusion of each regularly scheduled council meeting in conformity with the Michigan Open Meetings Act.
In Sterling Heights, there are two amendments to the city charter for voters to consider, regarding length of term on the City Council and nominating signature requirements.
The first amendment asks if Section 5.01 of the City Charter should be amended to provide that the mayor and councilpersons serve a four-year term of office. According to the city’s website, fouryear terms are the norms for comparably sized cities across the state. The charter currently provides for a two-year term for each of these offices.
The second amendment asks if Section 3.13 of the City Charter should be amended to set the number of signatures required for nominating petitions to be filed with the clerk at a minimum of 400 of the city’s registered voters and no more than 1,000 registered voters? Sterling Heights currently has the highest nominating signature requirement of all comparable cities in the state ofMichigan, with 862 signatures required. The city charter requires candidates to secure the signatures of 1% of the registered voters in Sterling Heights, which equates to nearly 900 signatures.
The city of Utica is placing a marijuana business ordinance amendment before the voters Nov. 3 that would allow for an additional location to sell marihuana. The proposed ordinance, called The Citizen Revised Marihuana Business Ordinance to Clean Contaminated Property in the City of Utica, would revise the currentMarihuana Business Ordinance to provide for two additional licenses to co-locate at one
additional location, thus increasing the number of physical locations from two locations to three locations for the sale of medical and recreational marihuana south of Hall Road and on theWest side ofVan Dyke.
In Warren, voters will consider whether the office of themayor of the city should have the same term limits as the other city elected offices. The proposed amendment would require all city elected offices to have the same term limits of three terms or 12 years. Currently, the office ofmayor has a limit of five terms or 20 years, and the offices of city council, clerk, and treasurer have a limit of three terms or 12 years. Any terms or years served prior to this amendment are included.
The placement of this question has been a bone of contention between Mayor Jim Fouts and council members. Fouts, whose office was subject to the three-term limit, has said he feels Council President Patrick Green is seeking to push himout and take the office over, a charge Green has denied.
Term limits were enacted in Warren in 1998, when 77 percent of voters approved a ballot proposal limiting the mayor, city clerk, the treasurer and council members to three 4-year terms, retroactive to 1995. Themeasure was the first of its kind for Michigan’s third-largest city, and impacted the political landscape and elections a few years later because some officials – including former Mayor Mark Steenbergh – couldn’t seek reelection.
In August 2016, Council members who were much more aligned with Fouts than the current body put questions on the ballot asking residents whether the cap on mayoral terms should extended to five 4-year terms. With 14% of the city’s registered voters casting ballots, the measure passed 52.7% to 47.3%.
In Bruce Township, voters will be asked to consider increasing the size of the township board from five to seven members with two trustees added to the governing body. The two additional trustees would be elected at the next November general election.
Election Day is Tuesday, Nov. 3 though absentee ballots weremailed out Sept. 24 and clerks have reported brisk return of those already due to concerns about in-person voting during the COVID-19 pandemic.