Michigan residents will head to the polls on November 3 to cast their votes on two significant statewide ballot measures: Proposal 1 and Proposal 2. These proposals have the potential to reshape how the state is governed and how political campaigns are financed.
Proposal 1 asks voters whether to convene a constitutional convention for Michigan. This question automatically appears on the ballot every 16 years, and past attempts to pass it have been defeated. Currently, a "politically diverse coalition" is actively campaigning against the proposal, and there is no organized opposition supporting it. Despite this, early polling data suggests that the measure might appeal to voters who are frustrated with the current state of affairs in Lansing.
"Protect MI Constitution from Special Interests," the group advocating for a "no" vote on Proposal 1, reported raising nearly $3.2 million and spending almost $2.7 million on its campaign between July 21 and October 18. Mark Fisk, one of the political strategists leading the group, stated their intention to be "pushing hard through Election Day to make sure that folks get the word that you need to vote no on Proposal 1."
Michigan's state constitution was last revised more than six decades ago. Opponents of Proposal 1, including Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, have voiced concerns that a constitutional convention could be unduly influenced by special interests. They fear delegates might remove popular existing provisions, such as a voter-approved amendment guaranteeing abortion access. Conversely, supporters argue that a convention offers a path to bypass partisan gridlock in Lansing and foster discussions on issues with growing bipartisan interest, including the regulation of data centers and adjustments to property tax rates.
Should voters reject Proposal 1, the question will not reappear on the ballot for another 16 years. However, if the measure passes, it would initiate a complex series of events. Eric Lupher, president of the Citizens Research Council of Michigan, described the outcome as "a whole lot of things happening in a very short amount of time." The process would begin with Democratic and Republican primaries to nominate delegates, followed by a general election by mid-2027. Voters would elect 148 delegates—one for each state House and state Senate district—with no current requirement for partisan balance among them.
These elected delegates would then convene in Lansing by October 5, 2027, or potentially earlier if mandated by law. Their initial duties would involve selecting convention officers, establishing rules for proceedings, and hiring staff. The state Legislature would be responsible for determining their compensation. The existing constitution does not impose limits on the duration of the convention, how often delegates must meet, or the scope of changes they could propose to the current constitution. Ultimately, Michigan voters would retain the final say, as they would be asked to approve the new constitution drafted by the delegates in a separate statewide ballot proposal "not less than 90 days after final adjournment of the convention."
Proposal 2 addresses political spending, asking voters whether to ban direct or indirect contributions to Michigan politicians by the state’s regulated utility companies, specifically DTE Energy and Consumers Energy. The ban would also apply to companies holding more than $250,000 in state government contracts, along with their immediate family members and other individuals closely connected to these companies, including officials, those with "substantial" ownership interests, or members of their board of directors.
"Michiganders for Money out of Politics," the group responsible for spearheading the effort to get Proposal 2 on the ballot, did not have updated campaign finance filings available at the time of publication due to a reported filing error. Despite this, the group has gained a high-profile endorsement from former President Barack Obama, who encouraged Michiganders at a recent rally to vote yes on the measure to "curb pay-to-play politics."
Proponents of Proposal 2 argue that its passage would deter what they refer to as "pay-to-play politics," where financial contributions are believed to influence political decisions. Opponents, however, contend that the proposal would restrict free speech. While state law already prohibits corporations from directly contributing to Michigan candidates, Proposal 2 would expand this prohibition to individuals connected to the identified companies. Furthermore, company officials and their immediate family members would be barred from donating to entities affiliated with elected officials or candidates that cover expenses like travel, meals, or conference fees.
The proposal does not directly prohibit "dark money" spending by 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations, which are not required to disclose their donors. However, it seeks to increase transparency by requiring such groups to disclose their donors and expenses if they run "issue advertisements" within 100 days of a general election or 30 days before a primary. This requirement would apply even if an advertisement references a candidate or ballot issue without explicitly advocating a "vote for" or "vote against." Proposal 2 would not prohibit contributions to independent expenditure super PACs, which are permitted under the 2010 Citizens United U.S. Supreme Court decision. The proposal also includes language anticipating potential legal challenges: "If any portion is found void, invalid or unenforceable, the remaining portions remain in effect." Should Proposal 2 be approved by voters, opponents are expected to file lawsuits to challenge its implementation.
On November 3, Michigan voters will consider these significant proposals, weighing their potential impact on the state’s fundamental governing document and the regulations surrounding political financing.
