Proposal 1
Proposal 1 was the first ballot measure to be officially placed on the ballot this election cycle after being
referred to the people by the Republican-led state legislature. Sponsored by
Voters for Transparency and Term Limits, it seeks to amend the Michigan Constitution to reduce term limits and strengthen campaign finance requirements.
If passed, Proposal 1 would decrease the
overall term limit for serving in the state legislature from 14 years to 12. It would also require all elected state officials to annually disclose financial information, such as payments and gifts from lobbyists and other sources of income. Right now, Michigan is one of only
two states that do not require such financial reporting from its elected officials.
Supporters of the measure have said it will increase transparency and disincentivize taking money from lobbyists, while opponents worry it was placed on the ballot too quickly and should have been subject to further scrutiny. If Proposal 1 receives majority support from voters, it will take effect
45 days after the election.
Proposal 2
Proposal 2, sponsored by a coalition of organizations called
Promote the Vote, seeks to amend the state constitution to increase voting access. The proposal would create a nine-day early voting period and streamline the process of getting an absentee ballot by requiring the state to provide prepaid stamps, ballot tracking and a certain number of drop boxes. It would also enshrine the right to an absentee ballot and explicitly prevent any future legislation looking to limit voting rights.
Michigan’s
Board of State Canvassers initially
rejected the proposal, with the board’s two Democratic members voting in support of it and its two Republican members voting against it, effectively keeping it off the ballot. Promote the Vote
appealed this decision to the Michigan Supreme Court, which
ruled that it could be placed on the ballot this November.
Supporters have argued this measure is a crucial step in increasing voter turnout and protecting the right to vote amid
nationwide efforts to restrict access. In addition to the challenge that nearly kept the proposal off the ballot, opponents have also claimed these changes would damage election integrity, though there is
no evidence that increasing access to absentee ballots leads to voter fraud.
Proposal 3
Proposal 3, also known as
Reproductive Freedom For All, seeks to enshrine the right to abortion and reproductive health care in the Michigan Constitution. Abortion is currently legal in Michigan under a
preliminary injunction that blocked the state’s 1931 abortion ban from taking effect after the overturning of Roe v. Wade in June. Proposal 3 would repeal and replace the 1931 law to permanently protect the right to abortion, contraception and “respectful pregnancy care.”
A
record-breaking 735,000 individuals signed on to the petition for Proposal 3, but it was temporarily kept off the ballot following a
split vote from the Board of State Canvassers. Opponents pointed to errors with the
spacing of the proposal as a reason to reject it, and anti-abortion organizations such as
Citizens to Support MI Women and Children have advocated against it on moral and religious grounds.
Proponents of the proposal, including Whitmer and Nessel, argue this is a crucial step to protect access to abortion in the post-Roe landscape.
