Proposals On This Years Ballot

[Hondo]

There will be one referendum and 5 constitutional amendment proposals on the ballot this year.  Which do you favor and which do you oppose?

REFERENDUM ON PUBLIC ACT 4 OF 2011 - THE EMERGENCY MANAGER LAW -

PROPOSAL 12-2 - AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION REGARDING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

PROPOSAL 12-3 - AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO ESTABLISH A STANDARD FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY.

PROPOSAL 12-4 - AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO ESTABLISH THE MICHIGAN QUALITY HOME CARE COUNCIL AND PROVIDE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR IN-HOME CARE WORKERS

PROPOSAL 12-5 - AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO LIMIT THE ENACTMENT OF NEW TAXES BY STATE GOVERNMENT

PROPOSAL 12-6 - AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF INTERNATIONAL BRIDGES AND TUNNELS

[Hondo]

EMERGENCY MANAGER LAW -  I support this.  If you're in economic distress and need a State hand out, you should let the State manage the municipality to make sure the money is spent well and the situation is corrected.  Don't want an EM, manage you house better.

I'm voting against all proposals.  They are filled with special interests and the constitution should not be changed to reflect issues that should be addressed by our elected officials.  It should be harder to change our constitution.

[bedford wife]

I have received literature regarding both sides of these issues and I am more confused than ever.  Neither side seems to make their case effectively.  I don't like how some of them actually address multiple things.  Can some one spell the collective bargaining out for me?  I am concerned that when you allow collective bargaining a lot of times it turns into a bully approach.  I also see how it gives power to the workers to keep things fair.  What is wrong with having another bridge? 

[StopTheBurning]

The bridge is an issue I don't understand.  Do we need another bridge?  Who wants the bridge?  At one point I understood that Windsor wanted the bridge to keep all the truck traffic out of town.  Or maybe another reason is it slows down the casino traffic too.  Nobody has made enough of a case that i'm willing to use Michigan money to build another bridge.  I like the idea of Canada and the US supporting each other and if it meant more mfg jobs going to Mexico and Asia I'd be more in favor of a bridge.

[Hondo]

I'm not a big fan or changing our constitution for issues that can be legislated.  It's too easy for special interest groups to get their fingers into it.

I'm voting No on all!

Concerning the bridge.  I work in Detroit and often I-75 is backed up with trucks going to Canada in the afternoon.  Plus, this doesn't need to be in the Constitution.  The vote "yes" campaign is funded by a billionare that owns the current bridge.  We need a new bridge.

I don't understand the union proposal either.

[StopTheBurning]

WTH,, amend the constitution to allow unions?   No way that belongs in the constitution.  If employee and employer can agree upon something so be it but it should not be legislated that employers establish unions.

[johnnydollar]

I would recommend "NO" votes on all of them. Generally, when a proposal is on the ballot to change the State Constitution it is there because someone, usually a very rich person or an organization, wants something just for their benefit that they cannot get through legislation.

 A "NO" vote for the bridge issue means that Canada will pay for a bridge over the Detroit River that will benefit everyone in Michigan and Ohio as well as other nearby states. In addition, the federal government will give Michigan over 2 Billion dollars in road funds if the bridge is built. 
 
A yes vote might mean that an existing monopoly will be preserved and Michigan will definitely forgo 2 billion dollars in badly needed road funds.

Let me see: a free bridge and 2 Billion Dollars from the Feds. Sounds like a good deal to me. Vote "NO".

[StopTheBurning]

JD,  gotit.. NO it is on all.  No need to amend the constitution.

[Time to talk]

For heavens sake make sure that you read it. Just because the answer you want to say is "NO" they just love to include verbage that makes a "NO" actually a yes. So please make sure your NO is a NO.

[signal]

      The Bridge? This whole mess started because the idiot
that owns the Ambassador bridge refuses to let the state
inspect it. Imagine a bridge that carries most of the traffic
between Michigan and Ontario cannot be inspected by the
government. No one knows if it is really safe. He says it is.
Remember the interstate bridge in Minneapolis that collapsed?
      His attitude led to the thinking that a new, state owned
bridge would be better. Also, the Ambassador bridge is more
than 80 years old. Nothing lasts forever. The time to plan
and build a replacement is now. The court fight to block the
new bridge failed. The advertising campaign to stop the
state legislature authorizing the funding failed. Now this guy
and his friends are funding what amounts to an ex post facto
law, saying that no bridge can be built (if it is not finished by
Jan 1, 2013) without aprroval by all of the voters in the state.
    Think about it. If I-94 needed a new bridge near Romulus,
or I-75 needed a new bridge over the River Raisin, this law
would block construction until the whole state went to the polls
and voted yes. Every new bridge in every part of the state would
have to be voted for, every year, by all of us.
    This is a dumb, and narrow minded attempt to block one
bridge, that would ultimately effect road construction all
over the state.

[StopTheBurning]

The state legislature could have acted on all of these items and they ignored them or said NO.   Now the people with all to gain want to bypass the legislature and put it to a vote.  There is nothing about bridges, unions, or financial messes that needs to be in the constitution.  We have elected officials that are to act on these matters.