On August 31, the Michigan Secretary of State said that the “Promote the Vote” initiative has enough valid signatures to be on the ballot. It authorizes no-excuse voting. Unfortunately, it also provides for a straight-ticket device. It is a proposed constitutional amendment, so if the voters pass it, the legislature can’t repeal any part of it.
The backers of the initiative had sued to get the initiative on the ballot, after a preliminary check of the signatures showed that the initiative did not have enough valid signatures. The lawsuit, filed in federal court, challenged the way Michigan uses random sampling to check statewide initiatives. But it is likely that the lawsuit will now be dismissed, or considered moot. The lawsuit is Promote the Vote v Johnson, e.d., 2:18cv-12692.
California has a rule that an initiative can have only one subject. Does Michigan have such a rule? If so, this initiative would seem to violate it.
CF- The PTV petition is a const amdt — NO limit on subjects.
See recent Mich Sup Ct case about Voters Not Politicians gerrymander commission scheme.
—
https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1633_41221-410927–,00.html
has links to the various Mich petitions – const amdts and laws.
1963 Mich Const has –
Art, IV, Sec. 24. No law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title. No bill shall be altered or amended on its passage through either house so as to change its original purpose as determined by its total content and not alone by its title.
— applies also to Law petitions.
4-24 is often subverted by *tie-bar* machinations – law will NOT take effect unless other law (on different subject) takes effect. HACK courts put up with tie-bar stuff.
—
Mich has become like CA for petitions — due to the UN-representative gerrymander minority rule legislature.
—
PR and AppV
RE – NO excuse absentee voting —
the PTV folks unfortunately did not go directly to wanting ALL paper mail secret ballots
— as in Oregon, etc.
If PTV passes – then lots more absentee votes AND HIGH cost in person voting.
The absentee ballot stuff will allow more time for AppV and Condorcet education.
—
PR and AppV – pending Condorcet
RE- moot stuff
INJURY at time of filing case AND ongoing injuries —
do NOT magically go away.
More injury may end, of course, at specific time — in a pending case
— original and ongoing injuries become *past* injuries.
Too many moron judges to count.
TOTAL election law chaos coming on Tues 4 Sept 2018 or what
— MULTIPLE CRISIS cases in Fed and State courts
— due to PRINT ballots- DEADLINE dates ???
Pluralists continue to cry about establishment elections year after year only to perpetuate pluralism.
The United Coalition USA has been using parliamentary procedures under pure proportional representation (PPR) for more than twenty-three consecutive years and we are continually fulfilled with satisfaction by bringing balance between the USA’s existing pluralism and our team’s freedom to use PPR.
http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc-p7-usa.html
Craig, a court would probably say all the elements of the initiative are on the subject of election law, and therefore the same subject rule probably would not be violated.
The restrictions in California are in Article II, Section 8. They appear to be limited to popular initiatives.
I did not see anything similar in Michigan, except that the caption is limited to 100 words, and is required to accurately represent the purpose of the amendment. Conceivably it could be impossible to describe the changes in 100 words.
I doubt that the Michigan initiative would violate that rule. The current language generally provides that the legislature will enact election laws, that protect the secret ballot and provide for absentee ballots (Michigan has had absentee ballots for over 150 years).
The new provisions provide a number of “voter rights” including “automatic” voter registration, excuse-free absentee voting, etc. These rights are either already in statute or could be. But when Joe Bobblehead goes to vote, he might read that it guarantees the right to a secret ballot and decides that’s a good thing and vote for it.
The new amendment is poorly written. It says a straight ticket applies to all candidates of a party. The next sentence says a voter may vote a split or mixed ticket. But the most reasonable interpretation of that is that one does not have to vote a straight ticket.
The constitution does not say anything about partisan elections or primaries (except for a provision that no candidate shall have a “designation” unless necessary to distinguish candidates who have the same or similar surnames.
e.g. Abraham Smith, doctor and Zebulon Smythe, lawyer; but not
Bill Jones, tinker and Bill Williams, tailor)
The proposed amendment may be in conflict with the redistricting amendment. The redistricting amendment requires a voter to disclose their party affiliation in order to participate. Voters with overt political activity can’t serve on the commission, and party affiliation for ordinary decent citizens is secret. Your ballot is secret, but you have to tell us how you voted in order to participate in the political process?
Justice JR-
The PTV is one more leftwing proposed Const Amdt —
to PUT the specific voting *rights* into the Mich Const — regardless of any mere current or future law.
Mich Const has some existing other partisan stuff – Top Mich exec officers 5-21, Mich State Bd of Educ 8-3 — both technically un-constitutional due to independents stuff.
IF the PTV conflicts with the VNP gerrymander commission scheme, THEN the larger YES will prevail — more stuff in Mich Sup Ct highly likely. 12-2
NO STUFF FOR APPROVAL OF PARTS OF 2 OR MORE PARTLY CONFLICTING AMDTS.
—-
The HACK lawyers in Mich ALWAYS claim that ANY Const Amdt VIA A VOTER PETITION is illegal
— conflicts with existing language – not specifically amended or repealed —
— IE NO REPEAL BY IMPLICATION OF MICH CONST AT THE MOMENT BY VOTER PETITIONS — 12-2.
COMPARE WITH 12-1 GERRYMANDER LEGIS. HACKS PROPOSED AMDTS.
RESULT- MICH IS ONE MORE TIMEBOMB REGIME —
URBAN-SUBURBAN COMMUNISTS VS SUBURBAN-RURAL FASCISTS.
—
PR AND APPV
@DR, esq.
So the Graveline decision might not apply to independent gubernatorial candidates. IIUC, a petition is required to get on the ballot for the gubernatorial primary with 15,000 signatures. I don’t see anything that says that governor is a partisan office other than they run on a joint ticket with a partisan Lieutenant Governor candidate.
But the constitution does not provide a method of nominating the governor. The governing boards of UM, MSU, and WSU are not explicitly partisan correct? Why aren’t the governing boards of EMU, WMU, CMU, NMU. GVSU elected as well?
So the simple solution to get around the straight ticket requirement is to make federal, legislative, lcoal, university board elections non-partisan.
Which would only apply the straight-ticket to governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, SOS, and state board of education.
Justice JR —
As with all State regimes —
must look at ALL election stuff in each State Const and ALL State laws.
The mess was made complex by independents now running for offices formerly only partisan
– via primaries or party conventions
— took 1976-1988 court cases before the Legislature hacks passed a law for independents — ballot access in general elections
— [not yet in primaries — which may happen with the Graveline case]
The 3 larger University Bds have election stuff — 8-5 — partisan conventions or independents.
Other Univ bds have. appointed hacks — 8-6
—
NO caucuses, primaries and conventions
ALL nominations ONLY via Nom Pet or filing fees
PR and AppV
The 4 Mich statewide educ bds votes data are used by the gerrymander monsters as a *base* vote —
thus the gerrymander connection with the Mich logo case.
@DR,
The Michigan Constitution already requires a secret ballot. The PTV folks put “right to a secret ballot” first because people probably think it reasonable, and they wanted to hide that they were getting rid of the existing text.
Note that in Michigan, new text is all upper case, which many people interpret as being more important.
To the extent that it violates the current constitution because it violates the right to a secret ballot by requiring voters to involuntarily reveal their political beliefs in order to participate in the commission, it might not be implementable.
Mich —
Competing leftwing gangs — VNP vs PTV.
Various boards have 1/2 Party Hack max limits — 2 of 4, etc.
NO party hack voter registrations — except by mere law for Prez primaries
— blatant violation of secret ballot.
—
How many State Const have partisan gerrymander commissions (or other boards) and secret ballot sections ???
The NEW TEXT IN CAPS stuff is NOT in 12-2 —
is a MI SOS machination– related to text in mere bills in Legislature.
See other postings about underline – add – and interline – delete.