Michigan ballot proposals, 2012

Presidential elections
1836 1840 1844 1848 1852 1856 1860 1864 1868 1872 1876 1880 1884 1888 1892 1896 1900 1904 1908 1912 1916 1920 1924 1928 1932 1936 1940 1944 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016
Presidential primaries
Democratic 2004 2008 Republican 2008 2012
U.S. Senate elections
1978 1984 1988 1990 1994 1996 2000 2002 2006 2008 2012 2014 2018
U.S. House elections
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 8th district, 2006 2008 2010 2012 (11th) 2014 2016 2018

State government

Gubernatorial elections
1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018
Attorney General elections
2010 2014 2018
Secretary of State elections
2002 2006 2010 2014 2018
State Senate elections
2002 2006 2010 2014 2016 4th (special) 2018
State House elections
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Ballot measures

1996: Proposal E

2004: Proposal 04-2

2006: Proposal 06-2

2012: Proposal 1; Proposal 2; Proposal 3; Proposal 4; Proposal 5; Proposal 6

Detroit

Mayoral elections
2009 2013

The Michigan ballot proposals in 2012 included a referendum on a law passed by the Michigan Legislature and five proposed amendments to the Michigan Constitution. All six proposals were defeated.^[1]

Proposal 1

Proposal 1 was a referendum on Public Act 4 of 2011, the emergency manager law, and it resulted in the law's repeal.

P.A. 4 of 2011 was passed by the Michigan Legislature in March 2011 and was signed by Governor Rick Snyder on March 16.^[2] It established criteria to assess the financial condition of local government units, including school districts, authorized the Governor to appoint an emergency manager (EM) upon state finding of a financial emergency, and allow the EM to act in place of local government officials, required the EM to develop financial and operating plans, which may include modification or termination of contracts, reorganization of government, and determination of expenditures, services, and use of assets until the emergency is resolved, or, alternatively, authorized a state-appointed review team to enter into a local government approved consent decree. ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6]

Proposal 2

Proposal 2 was a proposed constitutional amendment which would have granted public and private employees the constitutional right to organize and bargain collectively through labor unions, invalidated existing or future state or local laws that limited the ability to join unions and bargain collectively, and to negotiate and enforce collective bargaining agreements, including employees’ financial support of their labor unions, overridden state laws that regulate hours and conditions of employment to the extent that those laws conflict with collective bargaining agreements, and defined "employer" as a person or entity employing one or more employees. Laws may still have been enacted to prohibit public employees from striking. The proposal failed 57%-43%.^[7]^[8]^[9]

Proposal 3

Proposal 3 was a proposed constitutional amendment which would have required electric utilities to provide at least 25% of their annual retail sales of electricity from renewable energy sources, which are wind, solar, biomass, and hydropower, by 2025, limited to not more than 1% per year electric utility rate increases charged to consumers only to achieve compliance with the renewable energy standard, allowed annual extensions of the deadline to meet the 25% standard in order to prevent rate increases over the 1% limit, and required the Legislature to enact additional laws to encourage the use of Michigan made equipment and employment of Michigan residents.^[10]^[11]^[12]

Proposal 4

Proposal 4 was a proposed constitutional amendment which would have allowed in-home care workers to bargain collectively with the Michigan Quality Home Care Council (MQHCC), continued the current exclusive representative of in-home care workers until modified in accordance with labor laws, require MQHCC to provide training for in-home care workers, create a registry of workers who pass background checks, and provide financial services to patients to manage the cost of in-home care, preserved patients' rights to hire in-home care workers who are not referred from the MQHCC registry who are bargaining unit members, and authorized the MQHCC to set minimum compensation standards and terms and conditions of employment.^[13]^[14]^[15]

Proposal 5

Proposal 5 was a proposed constitutional amendment which would have required a 2/3 majority vote of the State House and the State Senate, or a statewide vote of the people at a November election, in order for the State of Michigan to impose new or additional taxes on taxpayers or expand the base of taxation or increasing the rate of taxation. This section was in no way to be construed to limit or modify tax limitations otherwise created in the Constitution.^[16]^[17]^[18]

Proposal 6

Proposal 6 was a proposed constitutional amendment which would have required the approval of a majority of voters at a statewide election and in each municipality where "new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles" are to be located before the State of Michigan may expend state funds or resources for acquiring land, designing, soliciting bids for, constructing, financing, or promoting new international bridges or tunnels, and created a definition of "new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles" that means, "any bridge or tunnel which is not open to the public and serving traffic as of January 1, 2012."^[19]^[20]^[21]

References

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 4/23/2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.