Out of the half-dozen or so initiative petition drives over the past two years aimed at putting questions on the 2026 general election ballot in Michigan, only two will actually appear Nov. 3 for voters to decide.
In fact, one of them didn’t need any signature gathering at all — Proposal 1 automatically qualifies for the ballot every 16 years, mandated by Michigan’s current constitution. It asks voters whether they want to convene another Constitutional Convention. The only three times such votes have been held in the past — in 1978, 1994, and 2010 — they were resoundingly defeated by a hefty “No” vote.
Proposal 2, by contrast, was the result of a petition drive, and it narrowly qualified for the ballot after being approved by the Board of State Canvassers and withstanding court challenges. This proposal, fueled by a group called Michiganders for Money Out of Politics (MMOP), would restrict political contributions from regulated utilities and government contractors with more than $250,000 in annual contracts. It also expands disclosure requirements for some political advertising.
How do things look for these two proposals right now? What are the prospects that either or both will be approved by voters? Here are the answers:
PROPOSAL 1:
It’s stunning, but a poll taken earlier this month by the reputable firm Glengariff Group, found that, despite no organized support or money being spent to urge voters to approve it, a “Yes” vote leads “No,” 47% to 31%, with 22% undecided.
Richard Czuba, who runs Glengariff, notes that the result of this survey shows a dramatically different starting point from 2010, when Czuba said polling at a comparatively similar time to this year’s showed the proposal at roughly 35% support and 39% opposition, with about 26% Undecided, Refusing to Answer, or claiming they “Didn’t Know.” It ultimately went down to defeat by a much larger margin, 66.6% “No” to “33.4% “Yes.” That indicates a hefty majority of the 26% U/RtA/DK ultimately voted No. That could certainly happen again this time, although a 47% “Yes” figure now is uncomfortably close to the 50%-plus-one needed to call another Con-Con.
“This could be very close,” Czuba said.
Czuba said Democrats and politically centrist voters appear more receptive to the convention than Republicans, contrary to what some observers may have expected. His explanation of this phenomenon is that there is broader voter frustration with government and a desire for more direct control over decisions.
“Voters want final approval on everything right now,” he said. “Anything that says, ‘We get control, we get to run the show,’ gets their support.”
Czuba pointed to the backlash over data centers as an example, with residents in some communities complaining that large projects are being “rammed down their throats.” The same thing could be said about growing citizen opposition to Flock cameras.
A crazy quilt of strange bedfellows normally at each other’s throats saw this coming and has banded together to finance a fight against Proposal 1, but the survey indicates that may not be enough, just as Haley Stevens’s spending advantage in the U.S. Senate Democratic primary on August 4 wasn’t enough to bring her victory over Abdul El-Sayed. Czuba’s advice for Democrats opposed to a constitutional convention: Start talking to Democratic voters about why they believe calling one would be dangerous.
PROPOSAL 2:
This one isn’t even close — to the consternation of the utilities and major contractors, the MMOP-inspired Proposal 2 should pass easily, according to the polls.
A Progress Michigan-commissioned poll released last week shows Proposal 2 leading 80% to 16% heading into the Nov. 3 election, with 90% of respondents also expressing concern about the influence of corporate spending and wealthy donors on Michigan elections.
The findings are consistent with other recent polling. A Detroit News/WDIV survey conducted Aug. 31-Sept. 3 found Proposal 2 leading 71.5%-16%, with nearly 13% undecided. A May Progress Michigan/Public Policy Polling survey found roughly eight in 10 voters supporting the proposal, including 82% of Democrats and 76% of Republicans — First Amendment free speech rights be damned.
It appears the Empire may not even attempt to strike back. Instead, they’ll save their money to pay legal fees when they challenge the election results in court.
How to explain these polls’ findings? Mike Madrid, a veteran American political strategist, campaign manager, and political commentator recognized as one of the country’s leading experts on Latino voting trends and voter behavior, has some ideas. A Republican consultant for over 30 years, Madrid has historically transcended party lines, advising major political campaigns across both sides of the aisle.
Madrid posits that, rather than viewing elections primarily through a red-vs-blue lens, analysts and psephologists should look at politics through a “top down” lens — voters opposed to institutions and people they believe hold power. Younger voters, he said, are less attached to the racial and ideological divisions that defined politics for Baby Boomers and Generation X.
Madrid said neither party should assume the change represents a lasting partisan realignment. He described Democrats and Republicans as “zombie parties” that remain structurally dominant even as voters become less loyal to either.
Instead, he expects traditional parties increasingly to function as umbrellas for competing networks built around personalities, social media audiences, and individual issues. Those factions may sometimes vote across party lines in combinations that would have seemed unusual under the older ideological model.
“The parties are being replaced by networks,” Madrid said.
This might also be called the “Horseshoe Theory” — a tendency of the political extremes to bend towards each other. It explains how the Republicans’ populist wing, typified by Vice President J.D. Vance, and the progressive left, represented by El-Sayed and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, have drawn closer to each other and more distant from the center of their own parties. As Wall Street Journal columnist Gregg Ip has written, Vance and Mamdani are populists of the right and left respectively, who see ordinary people pitted against global elites, including their own party establishments.
*********************************************************
A constitutional convention could be devastating to Michigan government. Examples of changes that could be made:
(A) death penalty ban contained in 1963 State of Michigan Constitution could be abolished;
(B) the Headlee Amendment could be rescinded:
(C) rights of privacy against invasive police conduct could be modified;
(D) governance of state control over public schools at all levels could be minimized or abolished altogether;
(E) taxation methods could be altered dramatically that could ruin the state’s ability to fund essential governmental functions.
When an informal State Constitution convention advisory referendum was voted upon in 2010 at the MIGOP in East Lansing it lost by a resounding 95% margin among state convention delegates.
Con-con is a horrendous idea that anyone with any sense or training on the issue would reject out of hand.
On the other hand utilities staying out of political campaigns is a great idea.i
I am strongly in favor of a Con-Con. The present document is badly outdated, and older than the “old” Constitution George Romney campaigned against in 1960. And remember, kids: If they write a Constitution we don’t like, we can vote it down!
G.J. Larouche is a Sterling Heights schoolteacher and GOP precinct delegate as well as a key proponent in Michigan of a state constitutional convention.
He has actually drafted a new state constitution. His desire is to completely restructure the entire Michigan government and he has a published book you can purchase on Amazon that advances his novel theories of state governance.
His document would abolish virtually all major sources of revenue for governmental operations – especially property taxes.
LaRouche has gained enough support for his new constitutional document that insiders in Lansing are concerned it may acquire populist support and adopted at a possible convention.
This document is one scary reason I do not want to see a con-con referendum pass the electorate in November.
Leanne, I’m a reporter covering Sterling Heights and recently interviewed G.J. LaRouche. I’m interested in your comments about the support you say he has gained and the concern of Lansing “insiders.” Would you be willing to speak with me?
Call me 734-459-4040 – I know GJ and was 10th Congressional District Committeeman when he in 2022 pitched his new constitution at a meeting.
On Prop 1: You really can’t get any reliable information from a poll regarding a ballot question. Sometimes, they happen to predict the election result pretty well, but sometimes they miss by 20%, or even 40%. I’ve written extensively about the technical problems, but ultimately the cause of the errors is that hearing a question read in a non-anonymous interview simply doesn’t create the same mental environment as casting a secret ballot in response to looking at the text. If somebody really wants to know how the voters will decide, the only reliable method I know is to convince a sample of voters to anonymously fill out pseudo-absentee ballots. Very expensive, but I’ve never missed a predicted outcome by more than 9 percentage points. I don’t have anything in the field this season, so I don’t know what will happen, but it’s hard for me to imagine ConCon has spontaneously become 20 percentage points more popular than it was 16 years ago.
On Prop 2: There’s a fascinating legal tradition in Michigan: “Elections cure errors.” That is, before the election, the courts prefer not to consider whether a proposal is constitutional, or legal, or whatever, they say it’s better to see what the voters say, and only deal with the issue if approval at the polls makes the issue unavoidable. But then – surprise! The courts generally rule that the voters are sovereign, and in any doubtful case should be deferred to.
So a ballot question of dubious legality, as long as it makes it to the ballot, is almost never overturned by the courts. They may construe it narrowly, and undermine it, and generally reduce its scope. But if you think MMOP is likely to get overturned – I bet you’re wrong.
Nice article, Bill.
I’m not really sure about the results of the poll on Question 1. Though back in 1962-63, I was a wee lad passing out campaign literature for dad’s unsuccessful quest for Con-Con. Back then the state had payless paydays and really wasn’t working all that well. As much as folks grumble and gripe, we are in a lot better shape.
Leanne is right, sort of. Those who oppose Con-Con will argue that taxes will soar, local government and schools will be eviscerated as taxes are slashed, and we may well hear some of those ads in the near future (I still hear more ads for and against Sean Carlson than anyone else, and I’m pretty sure the 6th Circuit moved out of that district), but it will be fun to watch. An even better idea is if the local TV stations decide that really covering it is in accord with their maintaining their TV licenses.
As for question 2, the utilities may be waiting for their day in court(s). Regardless of that, the next governor needs to make sure the Public Service Commission is fill with folks who realize their job is not to placate utilities and they have adequate staff who can challenge whatever the utilities say is their version of the Gospel. This too, will be fun to watch, especially if the TV stations decide that much of the fluff that fills their “news” programs should be replaced with real news. What a concept!
Anyway, H. L. Mencken had a couple of quotes that seem applicable to both questions.
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”
“The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy.”
And more detailed coverage of these issues like we get in TBR.
I will be voting NO on Proposal 1 (whether to hold a state constitutional convention).
(Author: “MICHIGAN’S CON-CON 11: Women and State Constitution-making in 1961” and daughter of 1961-62 Michigan Con-Con delegate Ralph A. Liberato)
Con Con is useless when the judicial branch has
Not tackled fast track adjudication.
Case in point ,NON ENFORCEMENT of the
Headlee. amendment ! A Political No No for every administration in 60 years !!!
I agree with Leanne and Mark Grebner