On December 12, the Michigan House passed HB 6595, which makes it much more difficult to get statewide initiatives on the ballot. It would provide that no more than 15% of the signatures could come from any particular U.S. House district. It also requires the petition forms to say if the circulator is being paid, and requires each circulator to file his or her own affidavit, telling whether he or she was paid. See this story.
I doubt that the distribution requirement will make much difference unless massive numbers of signatures are being gathered in a few districts (e.g. if the marijuana initiative was gathered entirely in Ann Arbor and East Lansing).
It is probably not constitutional, since it would add requirements to the Michigan Constitution.
Some of the procedural requirements are likely constitutional, since they are mainly governing format of petitions.
FASCIST Elephants do NOT like RED communist Donkey reforms of any type.
Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969) — UNCONSTITUTIONAL spread sig requirement
— one of the very few rational SCOTUS election law ops.
Census pop data instantly obsolete.
UNEQUAL Electors in each gerrymander district — esp from Census 0 year to next 0 year.
MI Donkeys, MI ACLU and MI CC are certain to go to court.
Moore v Ogilvie hardly applies to the system proposed in Michigan.
You concerns about unequal numbers of voters could be addressed by apportionment based on numbers of electors, and adjusting district boundaries every two years.
SURELY JR HAS READ THE 1964 USA REPS GERRYMANDER CASE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesberry_v._Sanders
SCOTUS MORONS TRYING TO REDUCE THE REALLY EVIL BAD MINORITY RULE IN THE USA H REPS. IN 1963-1964 —
THUS THE CURRENT MONSTER GERRYMANDER RIGGED USA REP. DISTRICTS IN ALL STATES HAVING 2 OR MORE USA REPS.
PR IN ALL LEGISLATIVE BODIES —
THE CRISIS IS NOW — ABOUT TO GET MUCH WORSE ON 3 JAN 2019 IN THE ANTI-DEMOCRACY MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDER USA CONGRESS.
ESP THE USA H REPS BEING TAKEN OVER BY RED COMMUNIST DONKEYS WITH THEIR PURGE AGENDA.
@DR,
What does ‘Wesberry v Sanders’ have to do with ‘Moore v Ogilvie’?
Wesberry was decided on the wrong grounds and the SCOTUS made up words and invested meaning in them.
The Constitution says that the representatives should be chosen by the “people” but then goes on to say who the actual choosers would be. Districts should be equalized on that basis, under equal protection.
One more MORON SCOTUS case —
Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/04/scotus-rules-that-districts-be-drawn-by-population-not-voter-numbers/476787/
The New Age SCOTUS MORONS may/will get Civil WAR II —
about like the infamous Dred Scott op (1857) produced Civil WAR I.
Loose SCOTUS moron cannons on deck.
—
PR and AppV.