Ludington Election Guide, pt. 2: 2018 Statewide Ballot Proposals

[XLFD]

Next Tuesday, you will find three state proposals on your ballot when you vote.  Unlike previous years with more than two proposals offered, the proposals seem driven by the same left-leaning political philosophy.  

In my estimation, however you vote on these proposals will say a lot about your underlying political philosophy.  The proposals in order and summarized, would 1) legalize marijuana, 2) reform the redistricting process, and 3) reform voter registration and voting procedures.  If you are inclined to vote 'yes' on all proposals, it indicates you fall in line with objectives of progressive Democrats, conversely, if you are inclined to vote 'no', you are likely more attuned to conservative Republicans.

Of course, it shouldn't hurt your credentials in either case if you do split your aye and nay votes on these measures but if you are extreme on either side, you will likely see a bit of internal conflict if you do.  Likewise, informed political moderates may better figure out their political leanings by how they decide to vote on these issues.  Neither of these should be automatically approved or rejected without looking at the proposal in depth.  This primer will look at the actual ballot language you will see, and offer some perspective following that presentation.

It should be noted that since 1996, the 38 ballot proposals have had just under a 50% chance of succeeding.

Proposal 18-1

A proposed initiated law to authorize and legalize possession, use and cultivation of marijuana products by individuals who are at least 21 years of age and older, and commercial sales of marijuana through state-licensed retailers

This proposal would:

• Allow individuals 21 and older to purchase, possess and use marijuana and marijuana-infused edibles, and grow up to 12 marijuana plants for personal consumption.

• Impose a 10-ounce limit for marijuana kept at residences and require amounts over 2.5 ounces be secured in locked containers.

• Create a state licensing system for marijuana businesses and allow municipalities to ban or restrict them.

• Permit retail sales of marijuana and edibles subject to a 10% tax, dedicated to implementation costs, clinical trials, schools, roads, and municipalities where marijuana businesses are located.

• Change several current violations from crimes to civil infractions.

Analysis:  The full proposal takes up five pages.  A recent estimate from the nonpartisan Senate Fiscal Agency projected the state could bring in up to $287.9 million in new tax revenue in 2023 if the proposal is approved.  Local Michigan communities could also choose to not allow recreational marijuana shops and facilities within their borders.

The opponents include most prosecutors and police officers groups, the MI Chamber of Commerce, Republican party leaders, Ted Nugent, and a few organized groups like Healthy and Productive Michigan and the Committee to Keep Pot Out of Neighborhoods and Schools.  Their argument voiced by Kevin Sabet of Smart Approaches to Marijuana:  

"Michiganders would do well to slow down and learn from other states: The marijuana experiment has led to increased substance abuse, more impaired drivers on our roads, thriving black markets and continued racial disparities.  Big Marijuana has its eyes set firmly on one goal: profits driven by selling highly potent products. Let’s not expand this failed experiment to the Wolverine State."

The proponents include the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, the ACLU, Democrat party leaders, and likely a sizable contingent of those who voted for medical marijuana legislation in 2008.  Their argument voiced by Josh Hovey of CRMLL:

"Just like with alcohol, marijuana prohibition has been a huge failure. Instead of wasting law enforcement resources on a substance that is proven to be less harmful than either alcohol or tobacco, our initiative creates a tightly regulated system that will generate significant revenue for the state that will help fund our roads, public schools, and local governments – three of Michigan’s most under-funded needs."

Proposal 18-2

A proposed constitutional amendment to establish a commission of citizens with exclusive authority to adopt district boundaries for the Michigan Senate, Michigan House of Representatives and U.S. Congress, every 10 years

This proposed constitutional amendment would:

• Create a commission of 13 registered voters randomly selected by the Secretary of State:

o 4 each who self-identify as affiliated with the 2 major political parties; and

o 5 who self-identify as unaffiliated with major political parties.

• Prohibit partisan officeholders and candidates, their employees, certain relatives, and lobbyists from serving as commissioners.

• Establish new redistricting criteria including geographically compact and contiguous districts of equal population, reflecting Michigan’s diverse population and communities of interest. Districts shall not provide disproportionate advantage to political parties or candidates.

• Require an appropriation of funds for commission operations and commissioner compensation.

Analysis:  Redistricting is a process currently controlled by the party in charge of the legislature on years ending in '1', the last time in 2011, just after Census data becomes available.  The aim is to create districts of equal representation throughout the state, but quite often, in a process derisively called gerrymandering, a district can look rather odd shaped in order to gain political advantage for either party. 

The basic idea of gerrymandering is that certain areas have a tendency to vote for one party; if you can create a district with those areas, you guarantee the opposing party an advantage there, however, in the process you make two or more other districts more likely to vote for the redistricting party.  

Opponents include the Michigan Republican Party, the Committee to Protect Voter's Rights, and the Detroit News, who editorialized:

"If Prop 2 fails to deliver on its promise of eliminating gerrymandering, the fix would require another ballot measure. A better solution would be for Democrats and Republicans to embrace the use of technology to draw balanced districts made up of voters with similar concerns without absurdly distorting the geographic map. In addition, the language defining how communities of interest should be grouped is vague and opens the door to endless litigation. Voters should say no to Prop 2."

Proponents include many Democrat leaders, many labor unions, Our Revolution, and Voters Not Politicians who put out this statement:

"On election day, we, the voters of Michigan, deserve to have our say. We expect our elections to be fair and transparent so that our votes matter and our voices are heard.  Politicians don't agree. They manipulate our voting maps to keep themselves in power. They draw voting maps that directly benefit themselves, instead of putting community interests and voter needs first. This allows politicians the power to choose their voters, instead of giving the voters the power to choose their politicians. This process gives us inattentive, ineffective, and unpopular representatives who keep getting re-elected over and over."

Personally, I think this proposal takes what's inherently a political process and makes it even more politically charged and dependent on a couple of people who may intentionally misidentify their politics.  The odd shapes will continue regardless.

Proposal 18-3

A proposal to authorize automatic and Election Day voter registration, no-reason absentee voting, and straight ticket voting; and add current legal requirements for military and overseas voting and postelection audits to the Michigan Constitution

This proposed constitutional amendment would allow a United States citizen who is qualified to vote in Michigan to:

• Become automatically registered to vote when applying for, updating or renewing a driver’s license or state-issued personal identification card, unless the person declines.

• Simultaneously register to vote with proof of residency and obtain a ballot during the 2-week period prior to an election, up to and including Election Day.

• Obtain an absent voter ballot without providing a reason.

• Cast a straight-ticket vote for all candidates of a particular political party when voting in a partisan general election.

Analysis:  The proposal definitely makes it easier to register, easier to vote, and allows those who wait until the last minute to decide to vote, register and vote.  It does seem to have a common theme of making it easier to commit voter fraud or register and vote as an illegal immigrant.

Opponents include the group, Protect My Vote, and the Detroit News who editorializes:

"But this proposal would allow would-be voters to show up at the polls on Election Day and ask to be registered. Polling places would become clerks’ offices, requiring more staffing and leading to voting delays. It would also make validating voter eligibility more difficult. Michigan does very well at registering eligible voters. Roughly 95 percent of those eligible to vote are on the registration rolls. Prop 2 deals with too many separate issues that would be better debated one-by-one by the Legislature. Voters should say No."

Proponents include Promote the Vote, a political action committee, who is leading the campaign in support of Proposal 3. The ACLU of Michigan, Michigan State Conference of the NAACP, and League of Women Voters of Michigan launched the campaign.  PTV says:

"We need a voting system that works for all citizens in Michigan. Period.  From working parents who struggle with long voting lines, far-away polling places and no time off work to vote, to people who frequently move for jobs or military service, we need to set up our system so that every eligible Michigander can have their voice heard on Election Day." 

Personally, I want more accountability at the polls so that my one legitimate vote counts, while each of these measures seems to make it easier and/or quicker to cheat the system.

Vote wisely on Tuesday!  Share your thoughts in the comment section.

[Willy]

Thanks for the information X.

The reasons I'm against legalizing weed are many but I will only post a few of them. We don't need another legal brain scrambler. There will be no need for suppliers to water down the product to maximize profits so there will be a huge spike in the potency of legal weed. It will be much easier for young kids to get their hands on it  because many long time users are their parents who will now be able to openly use it in the house around the children. Kids exposed to the smoke will affected by it and will get a contact high which will affect their behavior, mental and physical development. Many more people will be operating vehicles while under the influence, etc, etc. I'm not a big fan of sending people to prison for using it so a solution to that problem must be found if it is not legalized.

Prop 18-2, anytime we vote to add a section to the Constitution it should be looked on very auspiciously as is also the case with Prop. 18-3.

I don't like the way redistricting is currently done but having a group of people that  we have no idea who they are which are chosen by one politician is not a good idea. This prop is as dumb as it gets.

Prop 18-3. Another Constitution bound proposal that should be defeated if only because the Constitution is being altered to accommodate it.

The only reason an absentee ballot should be approved is if someone cannot physically get to the polls because of illness, handicap of they will be out of town on voting day.

Only U. S. citizens can register to vote but not on voting day. I don't see that in this prop.

Straight ticket voting should be allowed.

I would like to see Saturday voting added to  the first Tues in Nov, either on the Saturday before or after the first Tues.

[Freedom Seeker]

That is a scary point about weed being used in front of kids by parents in the home, but it is also happening with medical use and illegal use now. Also the DUI and craziness like happened in Denver after recreational use was approved is not good. I don't think there will be an "understanding" with law enforcement, and that tilts me toward "yes" as conservative as I otherwise am. Mostly to piss off the jackbooted thugs and SCENT busting down someone's door.

I hope someone brings back the good old smelling weed that is milder. This new stuff smell like skunk. I think it will be hard to put the cat back in the bag--like was said, "get Medical use approved and recreational will follow." Young kids today understand all too well too many evils in society and like all successes or failures, they will learn their own morals or struggle until they do. Sometimes seeing intoxicated parents actually has the reverse effect on a child ... affirming quietly and strongly "I don't want to be like that!". And yes, overall I think it is a mind-dumbing drug and a crutch, but it may be a better crutch than opioids. Some that do opioids may find relief in weed and cut back on opioids. The real solution, I believe, is mental discipline but that's not taught much anymore.

The other two props are big NOs.

[XLFD]

You may notice that I didn't append a personal note at the end of the analysis for proposal one.  It's a complicated conundrum for me.  Freedom Seeker's own personal analysis is eerily similar to the conflicts I have with it; I would have rather seen an intermediate step where the medical marijuana law could be reformed into something workable.  If the legislature and legal system hadn't messed the implementation of the 2008 initiative up, I would be a definite 'no' vote for this.  

As it is now, the police can suspend your Fourth Amendment rights by saying that they smell something like marijuana coming from your car or house.  And they do this, even when they don't smell anything and may be looking for something else.  I guess I will probably go to the polls and decide on which is the worse evil:  the legalization of marijuana or the legalization of continued encroachments on fundamental rights.  

[Freedom Seeker]

WOOD radio had a couple of interesting ads today.  Happened so fast I don't have specifics  of names, but the first a police officer advocating "yes" so police can do real work like the backlog of rape tests, etc.  Another a woman, advocating marijuana food stuffs will be highly regulated with limits, etc.  106.9 ... I'd like to hear those ads again.  Locally an ad is running that says "our kids will be subject to unregulated marijuana candy on school grounds" to that effect.