Ballot measures

I wandered over to http://vote-mi.org to see what's on this year's ballot (aren't we supposed to get sample ballots mailed to us? I remember getting them before, but I don't seem to have gotten one this year.)

It turns out that we have two ballot measures. First, there's:

Shall a convention of elected delegates be convened in 2011 to draft a general revision of the State Constitution for presentation to the state’s voters for their approval or rejection?

Uh... a "general revision"? I was confused about the purpose, so Google to the rescue. Oh, it turns out that this is asked every sixteen years, so it's not a "we'd like to propose a stealth constitution and hope no one notices" sort of thing like I feared. Okay, good. I'm still confused in general, but the gist is that it's a chance to restructure everything. I still haven't formed an opinion yet, but for the curious, I found http://www.lenconnect.com/politicalnotebook/x2030534895/Opinion-Roundup-Views-on-a-state-constitutional-convention to be helpful in even understanding the purpose of the measure.

Second, there's:

The proposed constitutional amendment would:
Make a person ineligible for election or appointment to any state or local elective office or to hold a position in public employment in this state that is policy-making or has discretionary authority over public assets, if:
* within the preceding 20 years, the person was convicted of a felony involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or a breach of the public trust; and
*the conviction was related to the person’s official capacity while holding any elective office or position of employment in local, state or federal government.
Require the State Legislature to enact laws to implement the prohibition.
Should this proposal be adopted?

Wait, you mean that we don't currently have this restriction? I wouldn't support a general "no felons in any office" policy, because there are some things that are felonies that have nothing to do with an ability to lead. But the restrictions are pretty solid there. I'm still pretty shocked at the idea that we don't already have this, at least as a law (if not an official constitutional amendment).

Ballot measures

I wandered over to http://vote-mi.org to see what's on this year's ballot (aren't we supposed to get sample ballots mailed to us? I remember getting them before, but I don't seem to have gotten one this year.)

It turns out that we have two ballot measures. First, there's:

Shall a convention of elected delegates be convened in 2011 to draft a general revision of the State Constitution for presentation to the state’s voters for their approval or rejection?

Uh... a "general revision"? I was confused about the purpose, so Google to the rescue. Oh, it turns out that this is asked every sixteen years, so it's not a "we'd like to propose a stealth constitution and hope no one notices" sort of thing like I feared. Okay, good. I'm still confused in general, but the gist is that it's a chance to restructure everything. I still haven't formed an opinion yet, but for the curious, I found http://www.lenconnect.com/politicalnotebook/x2030534895/Opinion-Roundup-Views-on-a-state-constitutional-convention to be helpful in even understanding the purpose of the measure.

Second, there's:

The proposed constitutional amendment would:
Make a person ineligible for election or appointment to any state or local elective office or to hold a position in public employment in this state that is policy-making or has discretionary authority over public assets, if:
* within the preceding 20 years, the person was convicted of a felony involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or a breach of the public trust; and
*the conviction was related to the person’s official capacity while holding any elective office or position of employment in local, state or federal government.
Require the State Legislature to enact laws to implement the prohibition.
Should this proposal be adopted?

Wait, you mean that we don't currently have this restriction? I wouldn't support a general "no felons in any office" policy, because there are some things that are felonies that have nothing to do with an ability to lead. But the restrictions are pretty solid there. I'm still pretty shocked at the idea that we don't already have this, at least as a law (if not an official constitutional amendment).