No. of Recommendations: 1
So, my attitude is, if it is working for the citizens of Michigan, and it is constitutional under the U.S. and Michigan constitutions to have such a commission--The Michigan Constitution was revised, by the vote of We The People, to establish the commission. That is why the old GOP controlled legislature could not get rid of it, tho they tried. from the net sifter:
Yes, Michigan's Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (MICRC) is fully authorized by the Michigan State Constitution, established through the voter-approved 2018 ballot initiative (Proposal 18-2), which amended Article IV, Section 6 to give the commission exclusive power to draw legislative and congressional maps, taking that power from the legislature. This constitutional amendment created a new, independent process for redistricting, ensuring citizens have the authority over drawing district boundaries for state legislature and U.S. Congress.
Key Points:
Constitutional Authority: The commission's power comes directly from the Michigan Constitution, as amended in 2018.
Voter-Approved: Michigan voters passed Proposal 18-2, also known as "Voters Not Politicians," to implement this change.
Exclusive Power: The MICRC holds the sole authority to create and adopt district maps for the Michigan Senate, House, and U.S. Congress.
Purpose: The goal is to create a fairer, less partisan process for drawing electoral maps, removing the power from partisan legislatorsWriting the provision into the state Constitution is the only way to prevent the legislature ignoring or corrupting it.
For years, Michigan had an "emergency manager" law, authorizing the Gov to appoint a bureaucrat, unaccountable to We The People, to usurp the powers of elected officials, and take control of a city or school district. We The People voted to repeal this authoritarian law. So, the legislature simply passed another emergency manager law, to restore the authority to the Gov that We The People clearly stated we did not want.
November 2012
Michigan Proposal 1: Voters reject measure, repeal controversial emergency manager law
With 93 percent of precincts reporting as of 5:46 a.m., Proposal 1 had 2,182,504 "no" votes and 1,983,228 "yes" votes. The 52-48 percent margin compelled the Associated Press and other news organization to declare the measure dead.https://www.mlive.com/politics/2012/11/election_re...And the legislature overrode the will of We The People, with a new law, and rigged it so We The People could not interfere again. from the net sifter:
In late 2012, after voters rejected Michigan's prior Emergency Manager Law (Public Act 4), the legislature quickly passed a new version, Public Act 436, designed to be "referendum proof" and provide local governments more options (like mediation or bankruptcy) while still allowing the governor to appoint an EM with broad authority to override local charters and contracts to fix financial crises, sparking controversy over local control vs. state intervention.
Background & Context
Previous Law (PA 4): A 2011 law gave governors sweeping powers to appoint emergency managers (EMs) to take over struggling cities and schools, leading to significant backlash, notes Michigan Public.
Voter Rejection: In November 2012, voters repealed PA 4 through a referendum, seen as a rejection of state overreach, says ACLU of Michigan.
The New Law (PA 436 of 2012)
Legislative Response: The Republican-controlled legislature passed a new law (PA 436) just weeks later, signed by Governor Rick Snyder in December 2012, reports The New York Times and CBS Detroit.
Key Changes: The new law offered communities choices when facing a financial emergency: an EM, mediation, bankruptcy, or a reform plan.
Continued Power: It retained the controversial power for an EM to override local charters, ordinances, and union contracts, ensuring significant control, notes Mackinac Center and CBS Detroit
Impact & Controversy
Referendum-Proof: The law was designed to be "referendum proof," meaning citizens couldn't easily vote it down again, says ACLU of Michigan.
Racial Disparities: The law was later challenged as discriminatory, as it was disproportionately applied to majority-Black cities and school districts, leading to the poisoned water crisis in Flint, Center for Constitutional Rights notesSteve
