There is a powerful solution available to voters in Michigan this fall that could, if adopted, radically change how the system works.
Yet virtually nobody is talking much about it. Oh, all the powers that be and entrenched special interests are petrified with worry that the people might figure out what they can do.
What I am talking about is rewriting the state constitution. This could have far more dramatic consequences that electing an odd congressman here or a handful of state legislators there.
And getting it done would be far easier -- at least the first and most important step -- than doing almost anything else. You may not know it, but it is already on the November ballot.
Every one of us will be asked when we vote if we want to call a convention for the purpose of writing a new constitution. If a majority of us vote yes, then here’s what will happen.
We’ll go back to the polls to elect 148 delegates to the convention. Each of us gets to vote for two of those -- one from our district in the state house of representatives. One from our district in the state senate. There would be a primary in February and a final election in June. Then, in October, the convention would meet.
They could then draw up any kind of constitution they wanted to, as long as it doesn’t violate the Constitution of the United States. They could change term limits; they could abolish term limits.
They could make a graduated income tax legal or outlaw income taxes entirely. They could give us a one-house legislature or a part-time legislature or something completely different.
Everyday citizens could run for convention delegate and help shape the new document. When they get it done, however long it takes, the proposed new constitution would be submitted to a statewide vote of the people. If we vote yes, it takes effect.
If we vote no, we stay with the one we have now.
To me, a constitutional convention sounds like a pretty worthwhile gamble, especially since the current system is no longer working on a number of levels.
But with the exception of Governor Jennifer Granholm, most of the state’s business and political leaders are firmly against it.
Yesterday, I asked Craig Ruff about this. He is a longtime public policy expert who has worked for several governors. It is simple, he said. “They just don’t trust the people.”
John Axe, a lawyer who strongly supports a con-con, thinks various special interests fear losing their special privileges.
That’s the kind of thing the Tea Party has been railing against. You’d think this would be a natural cause for them.
But they’ve largely overlooked it. Odds are that the proposal will be voted down. There’s little organized effort in favor of a con-con, and no money to buy commercials and educate voters.
Nevertheless, Ruff thinks there is a long shot chance that unhappy voters could get in the booth, see the proposal, and say, “hell yes. Let’s start over and try to do it right this time.”
Things are certain to get very interesting if they do.
Comments