Our friends over at Conservative Media are urging voters to turn down a complex ballot proposal that would reduce the size and cost of state government by cutting the number of lawmakers and judges, reducing salaries and benefits, and cutting the number of state departments allowed under the Michigan Constitution.
It's way too early, however, to be making judgments on this proposal submitted by Reform Michigan Government Now. I want to hear more of the facts and arguments of the backers before making up my mind.
But already there is one provision that I really like. It changes the timing of the election of members of the state Senate so that half are up for election in presidential election years (2012, 2016, etc.) and half are up for election in gubernatorial election years (2010, 2014, etc.)
Right now, all of Michigan's 38 state senators are elected at the same time -- in the same election cycle as the governor. This has some side effects that may not be apparent.
In the first place, this means that for four years, every member of the state Senate is immune from voter backlash over their actions -- a far different situation from the House, where voters run every two years. If half the state senators were up for re-election every two years, those members would be more attuned -- and more responsive to -- what their constituents were saying.
That was not the case last summer, when members of the Senate Republican caucus could
obstruct settling the state budget crisis knowing full well voters could not touch them until 2010, by which time voters would have forgotten all about the matter.
The other side effect is that state senators are never elected in a presidential election cycle. This has the effect of favoring Republican senatorial candidates. Democratic voters turn out in higher numbers in presidential years, and lower numbers for other elections. So senators always ran in a cycle with a built-in Republican advantage.
This is not a provision that will get much discussion because of all that is in the proposal. But I believe its impact will be far greater than many people realize.
For that reason alone, I am inclined to vote for this proposal.
5 comments:
Sorry to see we disagree on this issue, but I can guarantee we are not alone. I know many Democrats who are against it and some who are for it, and this will certainly serve to divide Democrats.
But we do agree on at least one point, and probably more.
In your closing you say “This is not a provision that will get much discussion because of all that is in the proposal. But I believe its impact will be far greater than many people realize” I agree, and that’s the main reason I am opposing the entire, complex package.
It would be nice if we could schedule a public forum so we could find out more about this proposal because there are so many ramifications of it.
While no one wants to be the forced to take pay cuts and cuts in benefits, our legislatures need to tighten their belts with the rest of us.
It is only real reform when everyone gives some.
I think this is just what our state needs. This gets my full support!
I agree if this gets on the ballot a forum is a great idea. I disagree, however, with bluzie. The pay cut is one small part of it, and, in my opinion, it was just inserted to make it palatable to the public. It’s pretty easy to support a pay cut for lawmakers. The fact is, legislators are being thrown under the bus.
This addresses far more than just pay. It eliminates judges and lawmakers, sets rules for how we draw district boundaries, changes how we run elections and eliminates entire state departments. All of those are major issues that need to be debated and studied on their own; to throw them together in six months is reckless.
Just the pay issue alone is overblown. Back in 2002 lawmakers got a 38 percent pay raise and people were up in arms, but they had not had a raise in years. I think if you divided it by years it came out to about 2 percent a year. The bottom line is, if you want quality people you have to pay them.
We have one of the highest paid state legislatures in the country and I do not think they are getting the job done. The wages they make and benefits for the time they work with a state having as many problems as Michigan, they simply are not effective. We just can't afford them.
I love the no reason absentee voting and post election audits of election procedures.
Honestly if the state legislators had been working on these type of measures this reform wouldn't be so necessary.
We either have to drastically lower wages or get rid of some of the representation. We have lost population, we can do with fewer Supreme Court Judges and Court of Appeals, do you know our Supreme Court has one of the the worst standings in the country!
If there is no accountability then there will be no changes.
I certainly hope the people can vote on the in November.
I think our state government is in great need of reform.
Post a Comment