- Thread Author
- #1
grandy
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2011
- Messages
- 11,694
http://rochester.patch.com/articles/your-guide-to-michigans-six-ballot-proposals
Proposal 12-1
Voters will decide whether to allow the approval of the Emergency Manager Law in Michigan Nov. 6, when a state ballot proposal will ask for a referendum on Public Act 4 of 2011.
The state Board of Canvassers placed the issue repealing the Emergency Manager Law on the Nov. 6 ballot, because it was directed to do so by the Michigan Supreme Court, according to the Citizens Research Council of Michigan. The law has been suspended since Aug. 8.
The following language for proposal 12-1 will appear on the Nov. 6 ballot:
This proposal would:
Establish criteria to assess the financial condition of local government units, including school districts.
Authorize the governor to appoint an emergency manager (EM) upon state finding of a financial emergency, and allow the EM to act in place of local government officials.
Require the EM to develop financial and operating plans, which may include modification or termination of contracts, reorganization of government, and determination of expenditures, services, and use of assets until the emergency is resolved.
Alternatively, authorize state-appointed review team to enter into a local government approved consent decree.
Should this proposal be approved?
If you vote:
Yes ? Should a majority of electors vote ?Yes? on the referendum, the law will be reinstated. The law will allow state officials to identify and take action on financial crises in local governments and schools. Such actions may prevent those local institutions from going bankrupt and in turn prevent taxpayers from more burden.
No ? Should a majority of electors vote ?No,? the law will be repealed. Voting "No" would not allow emergency managers to modify or terminate contracts with public employee unions. Also, it could end the right of the state to appoint emergency managers, which will return full authority to locally elected officials.
Proposal 12-2
From Ford's 40-hour work week to the legendary contract negotiations of the Detroit Federation of Teachers, the roots of collective bargaining run deep in Michigan.
Voters will have the opportunity to decide the future of collective bargaining in Michigan Nov. 6, when a state ballot proposal will ask to amend the 1963 Michigan Constitution to protect the right of public and private sector employees to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining despite current or future laws that might seek to restrict it.
The following language for proposal 12-2 will appear on the Nov. 6 ballot:
This proposal would:
Grant public and private employees the constitutional right to organize and bargain collectively through labor unions.
Invalidate existing or future state or local laws that limit the ability to join unions and bargain collectively, and to negotiate and enforce collective bargaining agreements, including employees? financial support of their labor unions. Laws may be enacted to prohibit public employees from striking.
Override state laws that regulate hours and conditions of employment to the extent that those laws conflict with collective bargaining agreements.
Define ?employer? as a person or entity employing one or more employees.
Should this proposal be approved?
If you vote:
Yes ? The Michigan Constitution would be amended to protect the right of public and private sector employees to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining. While the state would still be allowed to prohibit strikes by public sector employees, this proposal would effectively restrict the ability of state legislators from enacting right to work laws.
No ? Collective bargaining would be regulated by state laws currently in place. The state's civil service commission would continue to create the work rules and conditions of employment for state employees. Employee organizations would still negotiate with the state employer on matters not covered by the commission's rules.
Proposal 12-3
Renewable, clean energy is the goal that most states strive for, but should it be included in a state's constitution?
That's the question voters will answer at the polls on Nov. 6.
Michigan is among 29 states with renewable-energy policies already in place, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Public Act 295, passed in October 2008, requires 10 percent of the state's energy to come from renewable sources by 2015.
If passed, Michigan would be the only state to put a standard in its constitution.
Opponents such as Consumers Energy and DTE say the move will cost too much money and that many smaller utilities may have trouble generating the 25 percent required to meet the new standard.
The proponents biggest argument is that the standard will create jobs in Michigan.
The following language for proposal 12-3 will appear on the Nov. 6 ballot:
This proposal would:
Require electric utilities to provide at least 25 percent of their annual retail sales of electricity from renewable energy sources, which are wind, solar, biomass, and hydropower, by 2025
Limit to not more than 1 percent per year electric utility rate increases charged to consumers only to achieve compliance with the renewable energy standard
Allow annual extensions of the deadline to meet the 25 percent standard in order to prevent rate increases over the 1 percent limit
Require the legislature to enact additional laws to encourage the use of Michigan made equipment and employment of Michigan residents
If you vote:
Yes ? If voters vote "Yes," the Michigan Constitution would be amended to require 25 percent of the state's electricity to come from renewable energy sources by 2025.
No ? If voters vote "No," Michigan utility companies would not be required to provide 25 percent of electricity sales from renewable energy sources by 2025.
Proposal 12-4
Michigan's Proposal 4 on the Nov. 6 ballot pertains to home health care and the collective bargaining rights for thousands of workers.
The proposal calls for the establishment of a "Michigan Quality Home Care Council" in the state constitution and would affirm limited collective bargaining rights for about 42,000 home health care workers. Those workers are hired and fired by the elderly or disabled participants of the Medicaid-funded Home Help Services Program, and are paid by the Michigan Department of Community Health, the Michigan Citizens Research Council states.
The council would be the so-called public employer of home health care aides while the participants of the Home Health Care program would still have the right to choose, hire, train and terminate their home health care aides.
"The proposal provides that participant-employed home health care providers 'shall have the same rights relating to collective bargaining with the Council as are otherwise provided by law to public employees not within the classified civil service relating to their public employers' and would amend Section 5 of Article XI (Classified State Civil Service) to add 'in-home personal care providers subject to the authority of the Michigan Quality Home Care Council' to the list of those exempt from classified state civil service," the Michigan Citizens Research Council states.
The home health care providers would not be public or state employees and would not have the right to strike.
The proposal outcome doesn't affect the outcome of the Medicaid-funded Home Help Services Program will remain in effect regardless of the outcome.
Proposal 4 summary
According to the research council, the proposal would:
Allow in-home care workers to bargain collectively with the Michigan Quality Home Care Council. Continue the current exclusive representative of in-home care workers until modified in accordance with labor laws.
Require MQHCC to provide training for in-home care workers, create a registry of workers who pass background checks and provide financial services to patients to manage in-home care costs.
Preserve patients? rights to hire in-home care workers not referred from the MQHCC registry who are bargaining unit members.
Authorize the MQHCC to set minimum compensation standards and terms and conditions of employment.
Proposal 12-5
Michigan's Proposal 5 on the Nov. 6 ballot would require state tax increases be approved by either a two-thirds majority in the Michigan Legislature or by a statewide vote.
The proposal applies to new taxes, attempts to expand the tax base or attempts to increase the rate of tax. Michigan currently has a supermajority requirement to raise property taxes.
Michigan has 110 members of the House of Representatives and 38 members of the Senate, which means 37 House members and 13 Senators could block a tax increase.
The following language for proposal 12-5 will appear on the Nov. 6 ballot:
This proposal would:
Require a two-thirds majority vote of the State House and the State Senate, or a statewide vote of the people at a November election, in order for the State of Michigan to impose new or additional taxes on taxpayers or expand the base of taxation or increasing the rate of taxation.
This section shall in no way be construed to limit or modify tax limitations otherwise created in this Constitution.
Proposal 12-6
Though the U.S. and Canada have continued to move forward with plans to construct the New International Trade Crossing?coloquially known as the new bridge to Canada?voters will decide if residents should have the final say on it.
Opponents of the new bridge, led by Ambassador Bridge owner Manuel Moroun, spent millions to get the proposal on the ballot, aimed to put the bridge's future in voters' hands.
Supporters of the bridge, including Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, say it will be a boon for international trade, and ease congestion on the Ambassador.
According to HuffPost Detroit, the new bridge would cost about $1 billion, and would create 10,000 temporary construction jobs. Canada has agreed to foot $550 million of the bill, hoping to recoup it in toll costs.
Here's the language voters will see on the Nov. 6 ballot for the bridge proposal:
A proposal to amend the state constitution regarding construction of international bridges and tunnels
This proposal would:
Require the approval of a majority of voters at a statewide election and in each municipality where "new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles" are to be located before the State of Michigan may expend state funds or resources for acquiring land, designing, soliciting bids for, constructing, financing, or promoting new international bridges or tunnels.
Create a definition of "new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles" that means "any bridge or tunnel which is not open to the public and serving traffic as of January 1, 2012.
Should this proposal be approved?
A yes vote would require voter approval before the new bridge to Canada?or any other international crossing?could be built.
A no vote would allow elected officials to pursue a new crossing.
Proposal 12-1
Voters will decide whether to allow the approval of the Emergency Manager Law in Michigan Nov. 6, when a state ballot proposal will ask for a referendum on Public Act 4 of 2011.
The state Board of Canvassers placed the issue repealing the Emergency Manager Law on the Nov. 6 ballot, because it was directed to do so by the Michigan Supreme Court, according to the Citizens Research Council of Michigan. The law has been suspended since Aug. 8.
The following language for proposal 12-1 will appear on the Nov. 6 ballot:
This proposal would:
Establish criteria to assess the financial condition of local government units, including school districts.
Authorize the governor to appoint an emergency manager (EM) upon state finding of a financial emergency, and allow the EM to act in place of local government officials.
Require the EM to develop financial and operating plans, which may include modification or termination of contracts, reorganization of government, and determination of expenditures, services, and use of assets until the emergency is resolved.
Alternatively, authorize state-appointed review team to enter into a local government approved consent decree.
Should this proposal be approved?
If you vote:
Yes ? Should a majority of electors vote ?Yes? on the referendum, the law will be reinstated. The law will allow state officials to identify and take action on financial crises in local governments and schools. Such actions may prevent those local institutions from going bankrupt and in turn prevent taxpayers from more burden.
No ? Should a majority of electors vote ?No,? the law will be repealed. Voting "No" would not allow emergency managers to modify or terminate contracts with public employee unions. Also, it could end the right of the state to appoint emergency managers, which will return full authority to locally elected officials.
Proposal 12-2
From Ford's 40-hour work week to the legendary contract negotiations of the Detroit Federation of Teachers, the roots of collective bargaining run deep in Michigan.
Voters will have the opportunity to decide the future of collective bargaining in Michigan Nov. 6, when a state ballot proposal will ask to amend the 1963 Michigan Constitution to protect the right of public and private sector employees to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining despite current or future laws that might seek to restrict it.
The following language for proposal 12-2 will appear on the Nov. 6 ballot:
This proposal would:
Grant public and private employees the constitutional right to organize and bargain collectively through labor unions.
Invalidate existing or future state or local laws that limit the ability to join unions and bargain collectively, and to negotiate and enforce collective bargaining agreements, including employees? financial support of their labor unions. Laws may be enacted to prohibit public employees from striking.
Override state laws that regulate hours and conditions of employment to the extent that those laws conflict with collective bargaining agreements.
Define ?employer? as a person or entity employing one or more employees.
Should this proposal be approved?
If you vote:
Yes ? The Michigan Constitution would be amended to protect the right of public and private sector employees to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining. While the state would still be allowed to prohibit strikes by public sector employees, this proposal would effectively restrict the ability of state legislators from enacting right to work laws.
No ? Collective bargaining would be regulated by state laws currently in place. The state's civil service commission would continue to create the work rules and conditions of employment for state employees. Employee organizations would still negotiate with the state employer on matters not covered by the commission's rules.
Proposal 12-3
Renewable, clean energy is the goal that most states strive for, but should it be included in a state's constitution?
That's the question voters will answer at the polls on Nov. 6.
Michigan is among 29 states with renewable-energy policies already in place, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Public Act 295, passed in October 2008, requires 10 percent of the state's energy to come from renewable sources by 2015.
If passed, Michigan would be the only state to put a standard in its constitution.
Opponents such as Consumers Energy and DTE say the move will cost too much money and that many smaller utilities may have trouble generating the 25 percent required to meet the new standard.
The proponents biggest argument is that the standard will create jobs in Michigan.
The following language for proposal 12-3 will appear on the Nov. 6 ballot:
This proposal would:
Require electric utilities to provide at least 25 percent of their annual retail sales of electricity from renewable energy sources, which are wind, solar, biomass, and hydropower, by 2025
Limit to not more than 1 percent per year electric utility rate increases charged to consumers only to achieve compliance with the renewable energy standard
Allow annual extensions of the deadline to meet the 25 percent standard in order to prevent rate increases over the 1 percent limit
Require the legislature to enact additional laws to encourage the use of Michigan made equipment and employment of Michigan residents
If you vote:
Yes ? If voters vote "Yes," the Michigan Constitution would be amended to require 25 percent of the state's electricity to come from renewable energy sources by 2025.
No ? If voters vote "No," Michigan utility companies would not be required to provide 25 percent of electricity sales from renewable energy sources by 2025.
Proposal 12-4
Michigan's Proposal 4 on the Nov. 6 ballot pertains to home health care and the collective bargaining rights for thousands of workers.
The proposal calls for the establishment of a "Michigan Quality Home Care Council" in the state constitution and would affirm limited collective bargaining rights for about 42,000 home health care workers. Those workers are hired and fired by the elderly or disabled participants of the Medicaid-funded Home Help Services Program, and are paid by the Michigan Department of Community Health, the Michigan Citizens Research Council states.
The council would be the so-called public employer of home health care aides while the participants of the Home Health Care program would still have the right to choose, hire, train and terminate their home health care aides.
"The proposal provides that participant-employed home health care providers 'shall have the same rights relating to collective bargaining with the Council as are otherwise provided by law to public employees not within the classified civil service relating to their public employers' and would amend Section 5 of Article XI (Classified State Civil Service) to add 'in-home personal care providers subject to the authority of the Michigan Quality Home Care Council' to the list of those exempt from classified state civil service," the Michigan Citizens Research Council states.
The home health care providers would not be public or state employees and would not have the right to strike.
The proposal outcome doesn't affect the outcome of the Medicaid-funded Home Help Services Program will remain in effect regardless of the outcome.
Proposal 4 summary
According to the research council, the proposal would:
Allow in-home care workers to bargain collectively with the Michigan Quality Home Care Council. Continue the current exclusive representative of in-home care workers until modified in accordance with labor laws.
Require MQHCC to provide training for in-home care workers, create a registry of workers who pass background checks and provide financial services to patients to manage in-home care costs.
Preserve patients? rights to hire in-home care workers not referred from the MQHCC registry who are bargaining unit members.
Authorize the MQHCC to set minimum compensation standards and terms and conditions of employment.
Proposal 12-5
Michigan's Proposal 5 on the Nov. 6 ballot would require state tax increases be approved by either a two-thirds majority in the Michigan Legislature or by a statewide vote.
The proposal applies to new taxes, attempts to expand the tax base or attempts to increase the rate of tax. Michigan currently has a supermajority requirement to raise property taxes.
Michigan has 110 members of the House of Representatives and 38 members of the Senate, which means 37 House members and 13 Senators could block a tax increase.
The following language for proposal 12-5 will appear on the Nov. 6 ballot:
This proposal would:
Require a two-thirds majority vote of the State House and the State Senate, or a statewide vote of the people at a November election, in order for the State of Michigan to impose new or additional taxes on taxpayers or expand the base of taxation or increasing the rate of taxation.
This section shall in no way be construed to limit or modify tax limitations otherwise created in this Constitution.
Proposal 12-6
Though the U.S. and Canada have continued to move forward with plans to construct the New International Trade Crossing?coloquially known as the new bridge to Canada?voters will decide if residents should have the final say on it.
Opponents of the new bridge, led by Ambassador Bridge owner Manuel Moroun, spent millions to get the proposal on the ballot, aimed to put the bridge's future in voters' hands.
Supporters of the bridge, including Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, say it will be a boon for international trade, and ease congestion on the Ambassador.
According to HuffPost Detroit, the new bridge would cost about $1 billion, and would create 10,000 temporary construction jobs. Canada has agreed to foot $550 million of the bill, hoping to recoup it in toll costs.
Here's the language voters will see on the Nov. 6 ballot for the bridge proposal:
A proposal to amend the state constitution regarding construction of international bridges and tunnels
This proposal would:
Require the approval of a majority of voters at a statewide election and in each municipality where "new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles" are to be located before the State of Michigan may expend state funds or resources for acquiring land, designing, soliciting bids for, constructing, financing, or promoting new international bridges or tunnels.
Create a definition of "new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles" that means "any bridge or tunnel which is not open to the public and serving traffic as of January 1, 2012.
Should this proposal be approved?
A yes vote would require voter approval before the new bridge to Canada?or any other international crossing?could be built.
A no vote would allow elected officials to pursue a new crossing.
