MTA opposes Prop 1 on convening Con-Con
MTA part of broad bipartisan coalition urging 'no' vote on Con-Con
Following a vote by the MTA Board of Directors to oppose Proposal 1 on the November ballot, asking voters is the state should convene a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con), MTA joined a broad array of organizations and advocacy groups working together to urge Michiganders to vote NO on Proposal 1 on the Tuesday, Nov. 3 ballot.
The coalition, Protect MI Constitution from Special Interests, is working to protect Michigan’s constitution and ensure it cannot be hijacked and rewritten in a way that allows narrow special interests to reshape the state’s governing document or sideline voters. The bipartisan coalition is comprised of many prominent and influential Michigan organizations, representing a wide range of businesses, workers and voters across Michigan. In addition to MTA, coalition supporters include the Michigan Association of School Boards, Michigan Infrastructure and Transportation Association, numerous chambers of commerce, and the League of Women Voters.
MTA strongly opposes Proposal 1, which if passed, would open Michigan’s constitution to a complete rewrite. The question automatically appears on the ballot before Michigan voters every 16 years.
A look at Michigan constitutions—and the amendment process
Michigan has been governed under four constitutions since achieving statehood. The first was ratified in 1835, with subsequent revisions in 1850 and 1908. Our current constitution, adopted in 1963, remains in effect today. Michigan’s constitution already provides a mechanism for reform outside the convention process requiring voter approval: citizens may propose and adopt amendments directly through the ballot measure process and the state Legislature may propose constitutional amendments (by a two-thirds majority vote) and place on a statewide ballot for voter approval.
Since 1963, voters have amended the state’s constitution dozens of times through the citizen initiative and legislative referral processes, on issues from term limits to voting rights to redistricting. There have also been dozens of proposed amendments rejected by voters. Each proposed change was debated publicly, appeared on the ballot as a specific proposal, and was approved or rejected by voters who knew exactly what they were deciding.
If a provision is outdated or a change is proposed, the solution is to write a clear amendment and let voters decide that question directly. A convention does the opposite: it opens every section at once, hands the drafting to special interests and out-of-state money, and asks the public to accept or reject the result as a package in one up-or-down vote.
Historically, Michigan voters have said NO to a Con-Con because opening up our entire state constitution is viewed by residents as too risky. However, with societal and political changes and unrest, we cannot assume that voters will vote down Proposal 1 as they did in 1978, 1994 and 2010. This is why MTA has taken a strong position of opposition to Proposal 1.
What's at stake if there is a Con-Con?
During the last Con-Con, the very existence of townships was threatened, when votes were held on an amendment for the “dissolution of political subdivisions other than counties, cities and villages,” and efforts were made to remove or substantially reduce sales tax revenue to townships. In fact, MTA and its representatives played a significant role in the 1962 Con-Con, lobbying intensely and ultimately solidifying support for Michigan’s townships and their authority.
If voters approve a Con-Con on the November 2026 ballot, every provision in our current Constitution would be subject to amendment or elimination. For our members, what’s at risk? A convention could change the constitutional status of townships, township officers, the balance of power with townships, and the ability to fund township operations by altering tax limitations. Everything about how townships exist and operate could be on the table.
What does a Con-Con look like?
As shared on the coalition website, protectmiconstitution.com, if Michigan voters approve holding a constitutional convention, the process continues through several additional steps before any constitutional changes could take effect. A “Yes” vote on the convention question does not itself change the Michigan Constitution.
- Step 1: Statewide vote. Michigan voters decide whether to hold a constitutional convention during the statewide general election.
- Step 2: Delegate elections. If the convention question passes, delegates are elected by Michigan voters within six months. A special primary would be held in February 2027 and a special general election in May 2027. Delegates represent different areas of the state and are responsible for participating in the convention—148 delegates in all, elected in each state House and Senate district.
- Step 3: Constitutional convention. Delegates meet to review the current constitution, debate possible changes, and develop proposed revisions or a proposed new constitution.
If approved by the voters, a convention would convene on Oct. 5, 2027. There is no timeline or deadline for completing the work, with some estimates of more than two years before a proposed constitution goes before voters. - Step 4: Statewide ratification vote. Any proposed constitution or constitutional revisions developed by the convention must be submitted to Michigan voters for approval not less than 90 days after the convention adjourns. The proposal would not take effect unless approved in a statewide election by a simple majority of voters. (In 1963, the measure passed narrowly by 50.2% to 49.8%, necessitating a statewide recount.) If voters reject the proposal, Michigan continues to operate under its existing constitution.
It is estimated that total costs to hold a Con-Con could be nearly $80 million in taxpayer dollars.
Michigan needs certainty and stability—a Con-Con offers neither
Holding a constitutional convention would result in incredible uncertainty for job-providers, local governments, K-12 schools and higher education, and others. What’s more, investments, initiatives and reforms would likely be put on hold during the Con-Con process. Our local governments, and our state, cannot afford to be put on pause during this time. MTA, local leaders and Michigan voters can be supportive of individual issues to amend the constitution—not opening up the entire document for potential change.
What can townships do?
Section 57 of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act limits how a public body can use public funds or property when it comes to campaigning for ballot questions or candidates. While a township board may adopt a resolution to support or oppose a ballot question (as long as the ballot question relates to township concerns, property or government—MTA believes Proposal 1 meets this requirement), the township cannot use township funds, property or resources to distribute such a resolution. Read more about the Campaign Finance Act, and what townships can and cannot do, here.
Links & Resources
- MTA Board urges ‘no’ vote on Con-Con on November ballot
- What’s at stake for townships in next months election?
- Protect MI Constitution from Special Interests and Lansing Politicians
- Coalition Voter Guide
- Con-Con FAQ
- Northern MI business, government, real estate, education, advocacy groups urge NO vote on Con-Con
- Gongwer News Service | State Affairs podcast with Protect MI Constitution coalition
- Do Michigan voters want to rewrite the states constitution? (Podcast)
