Are you ready to vote on the most important measure in Michigan's 2026 midterms?

Yahoo

03-06-2025

Every federal, state or local elected or appointed official swears an oath to the constitutions of the United States, their state and their local government.
Given the abuse federal and state politicos are currently shoveling onto constitutions, it's a wonder the constitutions don't swear back at them.
Which leads to the most boring but ultimately critical question you will face in Michigan's 2026 election: How will you vote on the ballot proposal to call a new state Constitutional Convention?
There will no shortage of headlines about the 2026 election.
It's the first time there has been both an open gubernatorial and U.S. Senate seat in the same election.
Whatever major disasters or stunning (and surprising) miracles President Donald Trump concocts will guide how voters decide the makeups of the U.S. Congress and our Legislature.
There will be specific ballot issues.
All these candidates and issues will be hyped with massive buckets-'o-bucks, ads, flyers, calls, door knocking, social media harangues … leaving us overwhelmed.
But in this upcoming election, one ballot issue is already designated as Proposal 1 ― so ordered under Article XII, Section 3 of the Michigan Constitution ― and whether Michiganders vote "yes" or "no" could completely change our governmental and legal structure, affecting every aspect of life in this state:
How your business runs, your kids are educated, how prisoners are punished, our natural resources managed, what taxes we pay and what the taxes pay for, who will govern us; everything we know now about Michigan rules and regulation could be turned inside out, depending on how we vote on holding a Constitutional Convention.
The Michigan Constitution (last revised in 1963) requires voters be asked every 16 years if a new Con-Con (short for 'Constitutional Convention,' natch) should be called. In 1978, 1994 and 2010, voters overwhelmingly said no.
Next year, voters will be asked this question again. So, start thinking about it. Time also to acquaint yourself with Michigan's Constitution, if you know nothing about it.
Pay attention to this very boring subject, which, like most boring subjects, is really damn important.
More Trump's crypto, the Qatar jet ― will supporters finally admit something's wrong?
Constitutions are our supreme laws, guiding everything that governs and affects our lives. In some respects, the U.S. Constitution, Michigan's Constitution and your local city charter dictate how you act daily more than more than whatever scripture you follow (or ignore). Officials from the president to members of local municipal commissions (ask my wife, Cindy, who spent years on Huntington Woods' beautification commission) swear to follow and defend those supreme laws.
Or they are supposed to. We have expected, experienced and enjoyed such compliance with the rules for most of this nation's nearly 250 years.
What is happening now? Trump swore to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution (didn't have his hand on the Bible, but still …) yet he questions if he has to 'uphold' the Constitution. How can you 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution if you do not 'uphold' it?
His administration has ignored, thus violating, judicial rulings. He has tried to alter whole sections of the Constitution through Executive Orders, which is not permitted. He has accepted foreign gifts in violation of the Constitution. In open defiance of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the administration is shredding the rule of law.
Now there is talk the administration may suspend habeas corpus, an essential right guaranteed in the Magna Carta. (That's a governing document agreed to in 1215 by King John of England, under pressure from rebel barons.) Suspending habeas corpus is allowable only under extreme circumstances defined by the Constitution.
Those circumstances do not exist.
When asked to define habeas corpus, Homeland Security Security Kristi Noem gave the baffling response that it guaranteed Trump's right to remove people from the country. Nope, not even close.
More Democrats better hope Michigan Gov. Whitmer changes her mind about presidential run
In Michigan, our constitutional worries are less extreme, but still concerning. State House Speaker Matt Hall, R-Richland, has refused to submit bills passed in the previous session to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, though Michigan's Constitution specifically says that must be done (the argument wasn't helped by a goofy Court of Claims ruling that the bills should be presented, but the court didn't want to interfere in the spat.)
Hall has also recently suggested passing a budget isn't required by the state constitution (granted, the constitution doesn't set requirements on enacting a budget, but refers to a budget. A little thing called state law requires when a budget be passed).
And earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal brought by 11 Republican legislators challenging the citizens' right to amend the state constitution on certain election issues. Lower federal courts already told the legislators to stuff it, though in nicer legal terms.
Approaching the 2026 Con-Con vote, we face a populace and political establishment arguably more badly divided than in any period since maybe the Civil War. Many are driven by fear, anger and even hatred towards their fellow citizens, and unsympathetic to our constitutional principles.
Michigan is under its fourth constitution (tidbit: Michigan's Archives will soon transport the first 1835 Constitution ― drafted two years before we became a state ― to Boston specialists for a bit of fixup before it enters a new display in Lansing). After the 1835 Constitution ― which specified only white men could vote ― we had constitutions written in 1850 and 1908.
Our current constitution was drafted at the 1961-62 Con-Con, which launched a number of major political careers. Primary among them: George Romney, one of Michigan's greater governors, and longtime Detroit Mayor Coleman Young.
Including Michigan, 11 states are on their fourth constitution. Another 20 states use their original constitutions, with Massachusetts' Constitution adopted in 1780. Louisiana is on its 11th constitution, and Georgia's 10th constitution is the most recent, adopted in 1983.
Because state constitutions deal with more minutia involving state and local operations, they are longer than the 4,500 or so words in the U.S. Constitution. Michigan's comes in around 31,200 words; a breezy read compared to Alabama's 7th constitution, at nearly 403,000 words.
State constitutions are also amended more frequently. In 237 years, the U.S. Constitution has been amended 27 times. Michigan's voters have amended our constitution 39 times, with 85 proposed amendments since it took effect in 1963.
The state constitution, and its amendments, state essential Michigan principles. The constitution bans capital punishment, and establishes our court system, principles of education and which schools get state funding ― through our tax dollars ― and guarantees our state colleges and universities are free from political and legislative interference.
It prohibits a graduated income tax. It guarantees ― through a recently adopted amendment ― reproductive rights for women. It also sets rules on overall state finance, on how old you must be to go boozing, it determines that we elect 148 total legislators and not hundreds more, and that we have a Senate and House and not a unicameral legislature.
The current constitution was written to simplify and modernize Michigan government to face more current realities. The state endured serious recessions in the 1950s, and simply ran out of money. Neither the 1908 Constitution nor lawmakers were able to resolve the problems. Lots more officials were elected ― including the state treasurer and highway commissioner ― and every official served for two-year terms, exhausting voters.
That 1960s Con-Con reflected new social and economic realities. It was the first to include women and Black delegates. Labor with business and agricultural interests played a major role.
And in those post World War II years, the state and nation had a more positive outlook. There were tensions, of course, with the Cold War, changing roles of women, the Civil Rights movement; but most Americans were optimistic to the future. The chief issue dividing support for the 1963 constitution was that it did not did not recognize the principle of one man-one vote (that issue was resolved eventually by the U.S. Supreme Court).
The last three times they were asked, voters declined to call a new Con-Con. But, in each election opposition has declined. In 1978 nearly 77% said no; by 2010, it was nearly 67%. Still a landslide, but what drives the increased support for a new Con-Con? An actual call for change ― either for more progressive government or more conservative ― or just a 'yeah, whatever' mood too many people seem to currently embrace?
Or, given our current discontent with one another, do some voters see a new constitution as a way of imposing greater control over those they dislike? The question cannot be ignored.
You, the voters, will answer these questions soon enough. Make sure you know why you are answering them the way you do.
Free Press contributing columnist John Lindstrom has covered Michigan politics for 50 years. He retired as publisher of Gongwer, a Lansing news service, in 2019. Submit a letter to the editor at freep.com/letters, and we may publish it online and in print.
Like what you're reading? Please consider supporting local journalism and getting unlimited digital access with a Detroit Free Press subscription. We depend on readers like you.
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Will Michigan say yes to Constitutional Convention in 2026? | Opinion