State ballot proposals

Ballot language, our interpretation

November 6, 2006 —

Proposal 1

Ballot language:

A proposed constitutional amendment to require that money held in conservation and recreation funds can only be used for their intended purposes.

Our opinion:

Prop 1 is a sympathetic proposal. Backers are not attempting to take money away from other public services. The financial protection of our recreational services is by no means an ignoble cause. Yet, the business of government is not necessarily one of economic idealism, but of necessity.

If other programs that are equally important to the welfare of the people are suffering, your popularly elected lawmakers should have the right to divert funds as they (and in essence, you) see fit. Vote NO on Proposal 1, not because you are opposed to the recreational services the state provides, but because you disapprove of special interest groups seeking constitutional protection.

Proposal 2

Ballot language:

A proposal to amend the state constitution to ban affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity, or national origin for public employment, education, or contracting purposes.

Our opinion:

Affirmative action is an imperfect method of empowering women and minorities, but it recognizes that both groups are operating in an imperfect system.

The labor market is not "perfectly" competitive in the economic sense and given this, employers do not hire simply according to merit. Affirmative action, for all its problems, is a regrettably necessary public policy.

It is our sincere hope that in the future, a ballot proposal like this would make more sense. Until then, the economic environment in which affirmative action operates is such that this program must exist. We advise you vote NO on Proposal 2.

Proposal 3

Ballot language:

A referendum on Public Act 160 of 2004 - an act to allow the establishment of a hunting season for mourning doves.

Our opinion:

The group that was instrumental in getting this referendum on the ballot supports the abolishment of all types of hunting, which is ludicrous. However, this ballot proposal would be much easier to approve of, if say, only five other game birds were legal to hunt in Michigan.

As it is, hunters have the opportunity to hunt dozens of other species, most of which actually offer a challenge and some meat to go along with it. In the end, it comes down to how you feel about hunting for the sake of hunting. Should you hunt something just for the sake of hunting it? We don't think so, and encourage you to vote NO on Proposal 3.

Proposal 4

Ballot language:

A proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit government from taking private property by eminent domain for certain private purposes.

Our opinion:

The most favorable aspect of the proposal is that it helps, in part, to stymie the unfortunate erosion of some civil liberties in the wake of the PATRIOT Act.

At the same time, the proposed amendment's vague language ("fair market value," "higher standard of proof") should arouse suspicion in the voting public. Yet, despite the vagaries in the wording, we encourage you to support the rights of the individual by voting YES on Proposal 4.

Proposal 5

Ballot language:

A legislative initiative to establish mandatory school funding levels.

Our opinion:

Please vote NO on Proposal 5. The proposal is well intended but poorly conceived. It does not seek to rectify revenue shortfall in any serious fashion; rather, as most news outlets have reported, it seeks primarily to fund the skyrocketing costs of health benefits and the pensions of teachers in the short term.

It is, in effect, a knee-jerk reaction to the overwhelming labor costs most schools are faced with. Too many programs may face cuts as a result of the funding shift, and the alternative to cuts - raising taxes - is even less appealing.