«

»

Oct 03 2018

Print this Post

Michigan Ballot PROPOSALS Vote NO on 2

Proposal 18-2 Why You Should Vote NO
#NoMIProp3 #MITCOT  #MIElections

 

INITIATIVE PETITION AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION
Official Ballot Wording approved by the Board of State Canvassers Proposal 18-2

This proposal constitutional amendment would:Screen Shot 2018-09-27 at 6.24.03 PM

• Create a commission of 13 registered voters randomly selected by the Secretary of State:
• 4 each who self-identify as affiliated with the 2 major political parties; and
• 5 who would self identify as unaffiliated with major political parties.
• Prohibit partisan officeholders and candidates, their employees, certain relatives, and lobbyists from serving as commissioners.
• Establish new redistricting criteria including geographically compact and contiguous districts of equal population , reflecting Michigan’s diverse population and communities of interest. Districts shall not provide disproportional advantage to political parties or candidates.
• Require an appropriation of funds for commission operations and commissioner compensation.

 

1. This ballot proposal will CHANGE Michigan’s Constitution

2.The language you see on the ballot is NOT the law that will be passed. The language on the ballot has been reduced to hundred words.
The INITIATIVE PETITION AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION is the law that if the ballot proposal is passed

3. The path to get an proposal on the ballot is two fold, money and signatures. Most signature gathers are paid to collect signatures. Their pay is determined by how many signatures they collect. It is highly likely that inaccurate and certainly incomplete information was given by signature gathers in an effort to gather as many signatures as possible

4. The group behind getting the proposal on the ballot is NOT “non-partisan. Its a group on in state and out of state Democrats

 

‘Nonpartisan’ redistricting board has partisan ties

“Walt Sorg, (Sorg is an uber Liberal and was a contributor to the uber Liberal publication, “City Pulse” ) an advisory council director for the ballot committee, ran for the state House as a Democrat in 2012. Records show he has given at least $1,472 to Democratic candidates.

Finance director John Hanieski, former chief economist for the Michigan Department of Commerce, has given $3,399 to Democrats since 2005, including contributions to former Gov. Jennifer Granholm and past nominees Virg Bernero and Mark Schuaer.

Oh and look who else!

Former U.S. Rep. Joe Schwarz, who served as a Republican but now identifies as independent, is supporting the petition drive and has spoken at recent town halls, Fahey said, and grassroots supporters around the state have joined the cause.

Yes the same Joe Schwarz that is co-chair of the “Republicans” for Whitmer we wrote about in another Newsletter

Who Funding and Helping Voters not Politicians?

In state and out of state Democrats/Liberals PACS, organizations and persons.

Funding:

For example..
ACTION NOW INITIATIVE
1717 WEST LOOP SOUTH SUITE 1800 HOUSTON TX 77027 07/20/2018  $262,000.00
MICHIGAN UAW – CAP COUNCIL
8000 EAST JEFFERSON AVE. DETROIT MI 48214 06/04/2018 $100,000.00

CAMPAIGN FOR DEMOCRACY PAC
47 KEARNY FOURTH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO CA 94108 02/15/2018 $72,605.00 $72,605.00

Consulting:
BENENSON STRATEGY GROUP
999 18TH ST STE. 2105N DENVER, CO 80202 05/10/2018 CAMPAIGN CONSULTING $90,000.00

Take a look at their clients   A who’s who of Liberal candidates and organizations from Barack Obama, to Emily’s List, Planned Parenthood, ACLU, SEIU and more

Michigan Democrats largely controlled the maps in the 1960s and 1970s because they had majorities on courts that ultimately drew them after legal challenges. Courts again decided the maps in the 1980s and 1990s, relying on principles developed by state elections staffer Bernie Apol.
Interestingly...Those standards were codified into law in the 1990s under legislation sponsored by then-state Sen. Bill Schuette, a Midland Republican who is now attorney general and a candidate for governor.

Apparently no outcry then of gerrymandering in the 60s or 70′s

The point being this is NOT some non-partisan effort for the good for the people. It is a political agenda trying to guarantee that Michigan will NEVER turn Red again.

 

What the proposal actually does:

Screen Shot 2017-08-27 at 3.06.16 PMBill Ballenger of  “the Ballenger Report provides what I believe is an excellent explanation on Prop 2
Could ‘Voters Not Politicians’ Make Michigan’s Redistricting Regimen Even Worse?

…VNP has devised a clever strategy. VNP’s leadership casts itself as nonpartisan, despite the fact that the architects of its petition drive are almost exclusively past Democratic Party activists, donors and even a past Democratic legislative candidate. Most of the media — whether gullible, ignorant, or biased — have for the most part  accepted and perpetuated the non-partisan myth.

VNP’s mantra has been that voters should choose their politicians rather than the way VNP claims the process operates now —politicians choosing their voters. But is that claim true? If anyone examines the so-called “Apol Standards” that were unanimously ordered into effect by the Michigan Supreme Court (at that time controlled by Democrats) for the 1982 elections, they will find that counties were used as the basic building block in drawing legislative districts.

Under Apol, when it is necessary to break a county’s boundary line, the default procedure for mapmakers (no matter who they are) must be that the legislative district line has to be drawn along a city or township boundary line within that county. In other words, politicians under the Apol Standards aren’t choosing their voters. The districts simply reflect the population of the counties, cities and townships where the voters live.

Now, however, the “nonpartisans” at VNP have crafted a constitutional amendment that solves the Democrats’ electoral dilemma by focusing in on two dominating standards: “communities of interest” and calculation of “political fairness.”map of michigan

Because Democrats have the bulk of their voters concentrated in urban areas, they have been winning those election contests with huge majorities even while losing more closely-contested races in suburban and rural areas. Democratic strategists plainly need to find a way to use redistricting to spread their concentrated majorities outside the core of urban cities into suburban and rural enclaves. That would mean winning not by 90% majorities, but by still-comfortable 58-62% margins in many more districts.

To accomplish that end, VNP downplays the Apol Standard of maintaining the integrity of political subdivision boundary lines (counties, cities and townships) in favor of adopting a vaguely defined standard called “communities of interest.”

How does VNP suggest that a “community of interest” must be protected in line drawing?

Democrats will play to the strength of their party(and its interest group allies) in community organizing. Their party and its allies can pack the 15+ public hearings mandated by their amendment.(6 Sec. 6 INDEPENDENT CITIZENS REDISTRICTING COMMISSION FOR STATE LEGISLATIVE AND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS.Commission on legislative apportionment.) with their supporters, demanding to the 13 Redistricting Commissioners that district lines be drawn in such a way as to protect a perceived “community of interest.” It allows Democrats to reverse-engineer a partisan redistricting plan into component “communities of interest” parts to sell to the inexperienced novices who will serve on the Independent Redistricting Commission.

These 13 commissioners are to be selected by a series of random draws based on the statistical weighting of an applicant’s demographic and geographic characteristics, not based on any experience or expertise in government or politics.  (Yet receive a minimum of 25% percent of the governor’s salary! Sec. 6 (5)

Anyone who has such experience, or has a relative who does, is specifically prohibited from even applying, but the Secretary of State (whoever it turns out to be) will play a large role in the process. ( 6 Sec. 6 (2)(A)(B) (C)(D) (4) (7) Each of the part-time commissioners will be paid $44,400 a year, which is a quarter of the governor’s salary. A large staff, at taxpayers’ expense, will be necessary to get the job done. The maps they produce, if they survive court challenges, 6 Sec. 6 (19) (20)will almost certainly be uglier in shape and complexity than anything the state’s psephologists have produced so far.

This attempt to change our Constitution for political gain is abhorrent. The newly created and almost plenary power given to one official,the Secretary of State ensures political gerrymandering. The results will not benefit the people of Michigan.

Vote NO on Prop 2

Permanent link to this article: http://grassrootsmichigan.com/?p=4694

3 comments

  1. Jim McKindles

    Great insight, thank you, will pass on.
    jim

  2. Michael Crooks

    “Democrats will play to the strength of their party(and its interest group allies) in community organizing. Their party and its allies can pack the 15+ public hearings mandated by their amendment.(6 Sec. 6 INDEPENDENT CITIZENS REDISTRICTING COMMISSION FOR STATE LEGISLATIVE AND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS.Commission on legislative apportionment.) with their supporters, demanding to the 13 Redistricting Commissioners that district lines be drawn in such a way as to protect a perceived “community of interest.”

    What keeps Republican from packing the public hearings?

    1. Joan
    2. What keeps Republican from packing the public hearings?
    3. Good Question.

      Nothing. Just points to how flawed this Proposal is. Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians should all vote NO

Leave a Reply to Michael Crooks Cancel reply