POLL: Clear Majority of Michigan Voters Favor Retaining Long-Standing Regulations on Abortions, and Voters also oppose Spending Taxpayer Dollars on Projects Connected to the Chinese Communist Party
Question 1): A clear majority of voters in the state, including those who voted for Proposal 3 last November, support retaining long-standing regulations on abortions that are currently threatened by the Reproductive Health Act, such as a ban on Medicaid funding for abortions, a 24-hour waiting period, a ban on partial-birth abortions, and parental and informed consent et al.
Also, voters in Michigan are overwhelmingly opposed to the state contributing funds to two battery plants in Michigan that are being built by American companies in partnership with companies affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). By a staggering 72% – 11% margin, Michigan voters do not want their tax dollars going to these projects.
As part of the Michigan Poll®, these questions commissioned by Lansing-based Marketing Resource Group were surveyed October 2-8 from 600 Michigan registered voters and have a margin of error of plus/minus 4%.
Voters were asked if the state of Michigan should be funding projects that have partnered with American companies affiliated or controlled by the CCP.
The poll showed overwhelming opposition to the state funding facilities with connections to the CCP, with every demographic, political group and geographical region of the state opposed. Sixty-six percent of the voters in West Michigan and 90% of the voters in Northern Michigan opposed the project funding even though the two battery plants are located in their areas. Union members opposed the project funding by a 76% – 7% margin even though they could benefit from the jobs created. Also opposed were some of Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s stronger supporters, including females (72% oppose), African Americans (68% oppose), and those who support the job the Governor is doing (59% oppose).
The poll also showed a clear majority of voters also favor keeping all existing restrictions on abortion, most of them with at least a 70% support. In fact, only 45% of voters who supported Proposal 3 say they did so believing in full-scale abortion on demand; a majority either did not so believe or were undecided. Indeed, 41% said they voted for Proposal 3 believing that it would restore the pre-Roe v. Wade landscape created by the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court last year, INCLUDING all existing state regulations.
So, why haven’t the results of these two poll questions been more widely reported in the news media, since they show that what the Governor and Legislature have been doing this year on these two issues is plainly at odds with public opinion?
Answer 1): It’s baffling that the news media has failed to pick up on this, other than to observe that the ‘legacy media’ skews left in favor of what the Democrats are trying to accomplish and want to suppress any information or data that damages the Democrats’ agenda. Also, the media are often lazy and unimaginative, falling back on the “narrative” that Proposal 3’s approval “settled” the question of abortion on demand — it’s here to stay, and it shouldn’t be tampered with, they assume. But the poll results should give an opportunity to Republicans. The GOP would be smart to leverage these poll findings as a bigger overall message that Democrats are out of touch with the majority of voters on a variety of issues –- not just abortion, but jobs and the economy, corporate subsidies, green energy, etc. Republicans should get back to being on the offense when it comes to issues that matter to voters. Polling (and common sense) show that House Minority Floor Leader Bryan Posthumus is right. Posthumus contends that if Democrats want to go out and sell their new “Reproductive Rights” package as something no different than a tooth extraction, they will find out the world is different than their bubble. As for the battery plants, whether voters feel uncomfortable with companies affiliated with the CCP or they just believe there are better uses for their tax dollars, they clearly oppose the state contributing funds to anything connected to the Chinese.
Michigan voters didn’t support the amount of dollars going to the Marshall plant to begin with, yet between site preparations and abatements the state of Michigan has contributed nearly two billion dollars to the construction costs of two new battery plants to be built in Michigan -– one in Big Rapids and one in Marshall. In March of this year, MRG released polling data showing voters opposed the Marshall battery plant by a 2:1 margin, (30% support and 61% opposed). By adding the information about the CCP, opposition has grown to better than 11:1. Clearly, voters don’t like this.
Question 2): There’s an obvious disagreement between the more aggressive freshman faction of the state House Democratic caucus and House Speaker Joe TATE (D-Detroit) over issues like financial disclosure, abortion rights, and other legislation pending during the remaining weeks of 2023. How serious of a problem is this for majority Democrats?
Answer 2): Democrats have done a very good job of staying united to achieve their policy goals in the first nine months of this year. Now, on certain issues, the Speaker’s team is working to ensure they are positioned for leadership over the long term and are not forcing members to take unnecessarily difficult votes during a sensitive time. Every legislative caucus has some form of division, and this is nothing new nor unmanageable. Managing the Speaker’s caucus has got to be a challenge, and its drive to the left on almost every issue certainly puts the Democrats’ majority at great risk. The bottom line is that they need all 56 votes, every time. And the Speaker has very little leverage over many of his members. So, they have to limit themselves to issues where they already have 56 reps in agreement, or where they’re close to 56 and the holdouts are willing to be convinced. On some issues — like financial disclosure — the renegade, largely freshmen wing of the caucus has public opinion on its side, and the Speaker might be wise to adopt their proposed amendments rather than simply go along with the flawed, loophole-ridden “sunshine” legislation that came over to the House from the Senate. If Tate doesn’t pay heed to the upstarts on this issue, he may find the Republicans will side with the progressive left and make Democrats in swing districts pay a price at the polls next year.
Question 3): Speaking of financial disclosure, how many state officials and/or candidates should be included? Proposal 1 mentions only state legislators and the four constitutional officers, but it doesn’t say other state officials should NOT be included in any reforms or strictures the Legislature might enact. So, what about the judiciary, from the Michigan Supreme Court on down through all appellate, circuit, district and probate court judges? With all the controversy swirling around U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his possible conflicts of interest, why shouldn’t Michigan use the opportunity afforded by Proposal 1 to get in front of the parade and tackle this issue head-on? Why not require financial disclosure in some form for all Michigan judges?
Answer 3): The judiciary SHOULD be included. Indeed, the House Democrats’ progressive freshmen have proposed including all statewide educational board members or candidates for those four boards (U-M, MSU, WSU and the SBE), even though these offices are not mentioned specifically in Proposal 1. So why not judges? Common Cause of Michigan says judges should be held to the same standard as those in the executive and legislative branches, but so far neither CC nor any other reform group nor the news media has pushed such a demand. It’s baffling.