Memo to the RMGN Proposal Backers

Stupid is as stupid does... (4.00 / 2)

...so sayeth Forrest Gump's mother.

Why would there be a PowerPoint to start with and why would it be on a union's website?

The involvement of the MDP in the RMGN was an open secret and would most likely have spelled the death knell for the proposition anyway.  But to have put it out where some one from the Mackinac Center, of all places, could find it is worthy of a political Darwin Award.  I can just imagine the cackling from those hallowed halls.

I guess it just proves that supidity, deviousness and lack of ethics is pervasive in politics, regardless of party.  And anyone who is surprised at that should shut off the lights and go home.

No doubt some 'low level volunteer' will take the hit for the incident, but I also do not doubt that crap rolls downhill.

---

by: oldwarden @ Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:53:54 AM CDT

Good God (4.00 / 3)

Can we finally get everyone to admit that we have the Keystone Kops running our state party?!!!

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:04:16 AM CDT

electing Democrats (4.00 / 4)

West Michigan Rising: The Progressive Blog for Our (future) Left Coast

---

by: philgoblue @ Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:11:16 PM CDT

I disagree (4.00 / 1)

Our nation, and state, have been pushed to the brink of bankruptcy, and over it to fascism.  The GOP felt fine about re-districting early to help their chances.  For 30 years, we got NOWHERE by "playing fair and nice."  This isnt some effect point - this supreme court and their allies on the appellate bench for example, are screwing citizens rights daily.  But keep them doing it, so we can take some moral high ground?  Sorry, but I call that ridiculous.  Your site is great tho!

---

by: placton @ Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 13:40:12 PM CDT

You make some valid points (4.00 / 1)

The difference is though that the Rethugs didn't post their nefarious plans on the tubes for all to see and rise up against.

One of the reasons we so often lose is we fail miserably at the art of subtle and clever manuevering.  Except of course against each other.  Dems are the all time winners at sticking knives in each other so quickly and quietly one hardly notices till the blood loss is nearly fatal.  The House of Medici are rank amatuers in comparison.

Julie

To prepare for when your life flashes before your eyes, make sure it's fun to watch.

---

by: JNelson @ Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 14:02:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Read the Proposal (4.00 / 4)

The redistricting guidelines are not especially fair for Dems.  

They require a 50/50 split of the chambers by base vote -- even if, as seems likely, the Dems will substantially improve their share in November.

The plans are drawn up by a commission that is easy to dead-lock.  And in the case of deadlock, plans are decided by lot, with no appeal to MI courts.  In short it's a 50% gamble, once in 2010, then again in 2012 (post-Census).  

The plan would create a regional bi-furcation.  

In the few places where Dems have made progress in the West, the outlook is dire.  We face the loss of at least one seat from Grand Rapids, the  swallowing up of Muskegon by the out-county.  Kalamazoo alone may come out ok.

I've put more of this analysis up at my blog, Windmillin'.

---

by: Harris @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 13:28:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Money (4.00 / 2)

This proposal is a huge longshot. There's too much money being spent on it for it to be some ruse (as some conspiracy-minded people have suggested).

$4.9 million could be spent in a lot of ways that aren't "fair and nice" and would be far more productive. This proposal is a waste of money. Democrats have gotten nowhere by running bad campaigns and bad candidates. (Gerrymandering is practiced by both parties. neither one is more guilty than the other.)

I think candidates like Andrew Concannon and Fred Johnson could use some of this money to mount stronger challenges in their congressional campaigns. Not to mention funding a challenger to Cliff Taylor.  

---

by: rich @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 16:16:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I write this at risk of coming off as cynical... (4.00 / 3)

A. I'm impressed that the party had the grit to create such a brash proposal and then had the guts to take the risk of making a presentation explaining what they were doing.  It's really bold.  If nothing else - it puts the Republican Party on notice that Democrats are not above procedural intrigue.

B. The signatures have been turned in.  It's a done deal.  It's on the ballot.  Or not.  Rant, fuss, fume, fulminate all you like - it won't change a thing.

C. Considering that (according to Pew Research) 37% of people surveyed don't know that Barrack Obama is a Christian -- I think it's pretty clear that a lot of the "fine points" of this election are going over the heads of a large percentage of voters.  For that reason, I think that it's only election wonks (like us) who are going to care about WHY this proposal was originally crafted.  The individual voter is going to vote "yea" or "nay" for his/her own personal reasons.

---

by: Buster Vainamoinen @ Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 14:51:54 PM CDT

The problem from here is... (4.00 / 3)

they tried to be sneaky and failed miserably when it would have been much better to be honest.

But, by being honest, they would have then admitted to some pretty poor election results since they booted the 1990 contest and ushered in the Engler years; and they continued to boot the elections (by wide margins) until term limits were imposed and Engler was forced out. We have the districts we have now because Democrats did not get elected and Republicans did.

 

---

by: oldwarden @ Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 15:17:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Buster, you are inaccurate on point B. (4.00 / 1)

As someone with experience getting petition drives on the ballot and also failing to get some on the ballot, I would like to submit that the RMGM proposal has not yet qualified for the ballot.

The biggest obstacle is the drafting error that cites a section of the Michigan State Constitution that does not exist.

---

by: leondrolet @ Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 16:41:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Aieeeeeeeeeee! Miles Handy! (4.00 / 2)

Look, a crackhead!  Quick, someone get him a recall petition to sign, tout suite!

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 17:20:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If I call him "promising"... (4.00 / 2)

do you think he'll go away?  "La la la, I can't see you!"

Do stupid people know they are stupid?

---

by: JPowers155 @ Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 08:37:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Clumsy (4.00 / 4)

A. It is bold. You're right about that. But it's also clumsy. It gets rid of lots of things and adds a bunch of things, but leaves out the most important: repealing term limits.

B. As Leon knows all too well, turning in the signatures is only one step. They have to be validated...and that's where the fun often begins.

C. The finer points of who is backing this proposal and why will not go over the heads of voters once Republicans start running attack ads quoting from the PowerPoint presentation, complete with snarly-voiced narration.

---

by: rich @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 17:27:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ask why the Michigan Chamber of Commerce wants RMGN proposal defeated (4.00 / 1)

The bigger question you should be asking is why is the Michigan Chamber of Commerce funding the lawsuit against the RMGN proposal?  Why not the GOP?  Why not the MDP or the Libertarian Party of Michigan?  

Why not ask the Chamber if they are working "behind the scenes" and doing the bidding for another group? Otherwise, what is their motivation? Once the Chamber found out about the petition drive, they immediately issued a press release saying they were against it before they even read it!  

How can the Chamber justify using the funds of their members to shoot down a proposal which could finally fix Michigan's broken government and help the business climate?  How can the Chamber deny Michigan voters their right to decide on the proposal issue for themselves?  After all, nearly 500,000 registered voters signed a petition.

Please, before you go bashing those that are trying to affect serious reform to our broken government, read the non-partisan RMGN proposal and  consider the words of Prof. Ballard when he rightfully called Michigan's government a "partisan cesspool". Its time to reduce that partisanship and rancor, and get Michigan back to its former greatness.

Joe Lukasiewicz, Executive Director
Reform Michigan Government Now!
www.reformmichigangovernmentnow.com

---

by: Livesimply @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 18:26:35 PM CDT

The Michigan Chamber of Commerce... (4.00 / 5)

is opposed to anything Labor is for. The Chamber can justify using its members' funds the same way the unions can justify using its members' funds. The Chamber is doing the work of the GOP, much like the unions are doing the work of the MDP. It's called a Proxy War between our state's two major parties. If Gaffney is writing portions of the proposal, that's pretty much an endorsement by the MDP.

They only thing broken about our government is that we have a Senate controlled by Republicans who block all decent legislation, and a court system filled with too many right-wing hacks.

No one really wants to reform government; they want to change the rules to benefit them at the expense of others. The drive to "reform" our state's government comes from the desire to control all branches of government by the Democrats just in time for the next round of redistricting. (Don't get me wrong, I want to see that.) But let's be honest: it's not about reform. It's about control. The Democrats don't believe they can get control given the current structure. So they want to fundamentally change elements of the structure to give themselves a better chance of taking control. There's the Law of Unintended Consequences. If enacted, so many changes, merely for the sake of rigging the system, will end up biting us Big-Time. You wait and see. Think Term Limits, Prop A, and Prop 2.

Meanwhile, the money and effort would be better spent on Democratic party candidates. $4.9 million could buy a lot of TV ads for congressional challengers and a Supreme court challenger to Cliff Taylor. Not to mention helping Dems in all the open House seats.

P.S. I have read the proposal.  

---

by: rich @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:35:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Polling (0.00 / 0)

I think "Reform Michigan Government Now" polled better than "Eliminate Republicans in Michigan Government Now", although I personally prefer the latter.  ;)

What's wrong with Proposal A?  I rank it right up there with the 10 cent bottle deposit and no-fault as some of the best legislation Michigan's passed in modern history.  It's nice to know my school district isn't going broke and my property taxes aren't going to shoot up above the rate of inflation.

---

by: Brady @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:53:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Proposal A (0.00 / 0)

Great in times of prosperity; not so hot when things are tight.  At least, that is, for your local school district.

The problem with putting the foundation grant in the hands of the state Legislature becomes more apparent when contract negotiations come up, and everyone wants to lock in something for a couple of years, but no one has any clear indication how much money they'll get from the state.  That was why, earlier this decade, the MEA's "districts of concern" list was longer -- in the words of an old journalism prof of mine -- than the arm of God.  It's not to say that local administrations were negotiating in bad faith, only that no one could settle on a figure that answered the most basic fundamental question -- "how much basic funding could the district expect?"

I remember this being brought most starkly to relief while talking to the local teachers union and the local district negotiating team at a time when negotiations were so heated and ugly both sides could barely stand being in the same room.  Both, independently said that the chief problem was that no one could settle on a baseline budget number.  It was made the worse because both sides were in constant negotiations -- the lack of firm idea prompted a series of one-year contracts.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 13:37:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

On the other hand (0.00 / 0)

It at least leaves local school districts with a rough idea of what they will be receiving.  Much more so than having to rely on operating millages.  I know some homeowners complain that taxable values (due to inflation) are increasing in a year when real home values are falling, but the long-term trend is for home values to appreciate.  

---

by: Brady @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 14:54:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's anti-democratic (0.00 / 0)

I live in a city where we want to pass more taxes to have exceptional public schools.  But, we can't.  We want some local control back.

West Michigan Rising: The Progressive Blog for Our (future) Left Coast

---

by: philgoblue @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 14:15:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Point of View (0.00 / 0)

Phil, you've got to admit that in many ways Proposal A is more democratic in the sense that costs are shared with less affulent communities across the state who on their own wouldn't be able to have even mediocre schools, less alone exceptional ones.  And some level of local control is preserved under Proposal A with local millages allowed for infrastructure costs.  

---

by: Brady @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 14:57:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This will not reform Michigan (4.00 / 4)

I think everyone can agree on that, even if we would like the election results better than what we have received in the past.  The only reason to reduce the number of judges is that we do not like the specific individuals holding those seats.  That's not a reform.  Having partisan judicial races would be a reform of our current system.

Reducing the salaries of current judges is not a reform.  Its a solid attempt to get Engler appointees to leave before their pensions are affected, but not a reform.

Reducing the number of legislative seats is not a reform.  Its an attempt to create a Democratic legislature that will control the next redistricting.  I haven't heard any howls that we have too many reps or senators.

Reducing the salaries of legislators is not a reform.  Its the cheap gimmik we are hoping to suck in voters with.

The redistricting committee looks like a reform, but the Russian roullette component (agree or we flip a coin) bothers me.

Requiring the State of Michigan to act as though it was a Confederate state that needs to be under certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 bothers me.  The federal case law can create a situation where federal judges become permanent election czars.  Do we really want that from a W appointee?

The affect of reducing the number of seats with ethnic diversity bother me a lot.  I don't understand the wrong that is being reformed there.  Too many reps from the City of Detroit?  Help me out.

In the final analysis, this is what it is.  It is not "reform".  And it also opens up a new chapter in partisan gamesmanship.  In 2010, lets "reform" government again by making us a right to work state, while creating a part-time legislature.  You can imagine the possibilities.  

---

by: IgnatiusDonnelly @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 13:43:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Reform (4.00 / 1)

Okay, I'll admit that it's not reform in the conventional sense but it is at least re-formatting our state government by cutting out lingering disease from the Engler era.  That presentation has a good point in that without some judical and Senate re-formatting now, we're likely to have a Republican controlled Supreme Court and Senate beyond 2010.  Reducing the size of the House and legislative salaries does seem strange though.  At least, it could have gone down to an even 100 reps and 25 Senators.  I suspect the salary reductions were added to help sell the plan to the public.  Actually, doubling the salaries would probably be better since it would increase competition and likely the quality of people running for office in the future.  Right-to-work and and a part-time legislature are both very bad ideas.

---

by: Brady @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 15:05:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Question (4.00 / 1)

Ask yourself this: If Democrats already had the control of the government and courts most of us here would like them to have, would anyone on our side of the aisle be demanding these reforms?

---

by: rich @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 16:14:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Power Point Presentation (4.00 / 1)

Not if that Power Point presentation is real.

I had a constituent suggest something today that stumped me.  She suggests eliminating partisan ballot designations and other official recognition of party.  The MDP and Saul would still exist of course and advocate on behalf of certain candidates, but party would not appear on the ballot, there would be no partisan seating in the Legislature.  House and Senate leadership would actually be elected by the whole House.  Would eliminating this offical recognition of partisanship, especially on the ballot, make a big difference?

---

by: Brady @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 17:32:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Where do I begin? (0.00 / 0)

 The 1963 Michigan Constitution set the number of appeals judges at nine. The Michigan Court of Appeals has now swelled to 28 justices with an annual support cost of about $300,000 each.  Yet, their caseload has diminished 28% over the years.    Even Chief Justice Taylor said that we should reduce the size of the Appellate Court!    

---

by: RMGN @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 19:21:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Where do I begin? (0.00 / 0)

Here's our Supreme Court: Chicago Law School critical of Michigan Supreme Court

ANN ARBOR, MI (2008-06-16) Michigan's Supreme Court received harsh criticism in a new report from the University of Chicago Law School. The report ranks all fifty State Supremem Courts and Michigan's came in last. The rankings are based on judicial independence from political or outside influences, the number of published opinions, and how often the court is referenced by others. Tim Smith is an attorney in Traverse City. He says the report is a poor reflection on Michigan.

"As an attorney, I can't disagree with it," Smith said, "I can't say that I'm suprised. And as a member of the State Bar of Michigan it's embarrassing."

Smith says the most embarrassing part of the report deals with the court's judicial independence. He says the Michigan Supreme Court seems to be especially supportive of businesses. Recent national Chamber of Commerce reports have ranked the Michigan Supreme Court highly. The court has not responded to the study.
© Copyright 2008, Michigan Radio  

---

by: RMGN @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 19:15:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Petition Language (0.00 / 0)

Here is the actual petition summary which appeared at the top of the petitions: If adopted this proposal will amend the Michigan constitution to: rollback the elected officials' salaries; require disclosure of income and assets; streamline the state legislature by reducing the Senate from 38 to 28 members and the House from 110 to 82; limit elected officials' retirement benefits to the same as state employees; cut two state departments and cap the number of boards and commissions; downsize Appellate Courts and add 10 local judges; make the Bureau of Elections independent of partisanship and ban election officials from campaigning in elections they oversee; allow no reason absentee voting; require post election audits of procedures and mandate voting systems paper trail; establish non-partisan redistricting commission.

On a per-capita basis, we have more representation than the citizens of California which is three times our size and a far more complex state. Like GM, we can afford to cut some fat from the legislature.

Reducing the salaries of elected officials is part of the reform which will force them to vote FOR a pay increase, not vote against one as they now must do. By failing to disapprove their 38% pay raise, they got it without debate nor public comment. And, any approved par raise will now not go into effect until after the next election.  This means an incumbent would have to justify their vote on pay during their campaign.

Inclusion of the Voting Rights Act protects the rights of minorities.  Under our redistricting plan, minority representation is preserved.  There are 3 to 4 districts already that are predominantly minority yet elected non-minority legislators.

As far as partisan gamesmanship goes, this proposal will level the playing field and make each and every race competitive.  Its true, a secure Democratic seat will now be competitive with a Republican, but the inverse is also true.  No more will an incumbent be able to sail through without campaigning on issues.  This is the gist of the RMGN proposal, it strives to remove partisanship from government.

All of you need to step back and read the non-partisan ballot proposal.  There are many other reforms proposed which will reduce lobbyist influence, conflicts of interest, secret committee votes, and more.  I guess, if you love the way our government is being run, then our proposal is not for you.  In any event, the people should be allowed to decide that for themselves come November, not the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

 

---

by: RMGN @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 19:50:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Its obvious we have read it (4.00 / 1)

Its just that many of us disagree with you.  Many of us may agree with the result you are trying to gain, but are (1) bothered by tinkering with the constitution to get there; (2) bothered by the bold faced lies you are telling to sell us this soap; (3) bothered by the incapability of the MDP; (4) bothered by the fact that the leadership of the MDP isn't representative of the actual Democrats in this State; and/or (5) all of the above.

---

by: IgnatiusDonnelly @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:21:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Other Comments on RMGN (4.00 / 1)

Info on proposal

http://westmichiganpolitics.bl... (see recent RMGN statement)

http://compulsorynews.blogspot... (see Granholm decision)

---

by: Livesimply @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 18:55:06 PM CDT

I'm not sure referencing someone (4.00 / 2)

who is probably going to vote for Nader, helps your cause with Democrats.

West Michigan Rising: The Progressive Blog for Our (future) Left Coast

---

by: philgoblue @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:11:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Michigan Chamber of Commerce Caught in Their Own Web of Deceit (0.00 / 0)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                
FRIDAY, August 1, 2008                                                                                

CONTACT: DIANNE BYRUM                                                                                  
(517) 333-1606
www.ReformMichiganGovernmentNow.com

Chamber Pushed Ballot Plan to Amend Multiple Sections, Articles of MI Constitution

In 2007, Chamber spearheaded multi-part amendments through Senate

EAST LANSING - The Michigan Chamber of Commerce promoted a ballot proposal in 2007 that would have amended multiple sections and nearly half of all articles in the state Constitution - a move whose scope parallels Reform Michigan Government Now!

MIRS News reported today that Chamber Vice President Bob LaBrant helped push the multi-part 2007 ballot proposal after reading a report on the need for constitutional changes. Gongwer News Service today indicated that LaBrant had suggested the Chamber's ballot proposal could go before the voters.

"We agree with Bob LaBrant that multiple articles and sections of the Michigan Constitution can be changed through a single amendment and that voters should get the chance to vote on those changes," RMGN attorney Andrew Nickelhoff said.

LaBrant and the Chamber are now suing to block RMGN, arguing that it is too broad to qualify for the November ballot because it amends several sections and articles of the state Constitution. The Chamber's changes in its 2007 ballot proposal affected six articles; RMGN seeks reforms to only four articles.

"If multiple changes through a single amendment were good enough for Bob LaBrant and the Chamber then, they should be good enough for the rest of Michigan now," Nickelhoff said. "The Chamber clearly knows that Michigan law doesn't block amendments making multiple changes to the Constitution. Reform Michigan Government Now! is on solid legal ground, the proposal should go forward and the people of Michigan should be allowed to decide on these important reforms this November."

In a brief to be filed today, RMGN will submit the Chamber's ballot proposal as evidence that RMGN should be allowed to go before voters.

In 2007, the Chamber itself wanted to make broad changes to the Constitution, seeking to amend 12 sections affecting six of the Constitution's 13 articles, according to a resolution written by the Chamber and which it transmitted to interested parties on Aug. 1, 2007. The Chamber pushed the plan through the Senate; it died in the House. The Chamber's multi-section ballot proposal was slated to go on the ballot in January 2008.  

To view the Chamber's document, go to www.reformmichigangovernmentnow.com.

---

by: RMGN @ Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 18:10:11 PM CDT

Still Not Sold (4.00 / 1)

The hypocrisy of the Chamber of Commerce is hardly an ironclad legal argument. And I am not sure how a proposal that never made it to the ballot serves as any kind of precedent.

---

by: boehmianrhapsody @ Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 20:00:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]