Michigan Republicans try to make it harder to get initiatives on the ballot

More GOP voter suppression, as if they didn't do more than enough already. Republicans in Michigan are trying to pass a bill making the initiative process tougher because there are ballot initiatives coming up that they don't like. They want to eliminate an existing process where groups proposing ballot initiatives can gather the required signatures over a longer time period than the state standard of 180 days, even though it's legal under state election laws. This bill would eliminate the practice of using older signatures by using a verification process.

GOP electioneering is so widespread and so blatant that I can't believe someone hasn't sued the entire party out of existence already (someone please take my idea!)

thinkprogress.org...

Ah, I see now after I read it. Someone needs to sue them for lots of things. Even if it isn't their intent to do so, people need to stop fighting what people are already doing and have been and will be doing legal or not. Shame on You GOP.

I think they are pissed because we got the medical Mary Jane law passed. It was one time I was proud to see that the people still have a voice in the process. I signed the latest one and intend to vote that one into law too. I'd like to see more laws created by the people, even if they don't ultimately get voted into law.

Here, thread, let me link to the actual wording of Michigan SB 776 so that you don't have to do what I did and scour through links hoping to find it. Hell, I'll post the wording, as passed by the state senate:

SENATE BILL No. 776
(As amended March 10, 2016)

February 10, 2016, Introduced by Senator ROBERTSON and referred to the Committee on Elections and Government Reform.

A bill to amend 1954 PA 116, entitled
"Michigan election law,"
by amending section 472a (MCL 168.472a), as amended by 1999 PA 219.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

Sec. 472a. It shall be rebuttably presumed that the The
signature on a petition that proposes an amendment to the
constitution or is to initiate legislation , is stale and void
shall not be counted if the signature was made more than 180 days
before the petition was is filed with the office of the secretary
of state.

Now, I support such a change--if you cannot gather enough signatures within six months to get a measure on the ballot, you're not trying hard enough.

That said, if SB 776 really is being introduced in order to stop two measures that will make it on the ballot, that is some back-handed junk right there. At the least, if SB 776 passes, it should not be made law until after the election. No voting laws and guidelines should ever be changed during an election year, IMO.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Thanks for posting the actual legislation. I really dislike having to go through extremely partisan websites to get to the real information.

As far as I can tell, they've removed the possibility that "stale" signatures on a petition can be considered valid if a justified rebuttal to the legislative limitation is presented. Now petitions for state constitutional amendments must contain only valid signatures collected within a 6 month time frame, without exception.

This seems logical to me because of the possibility of abuse of this process. However, the timing of this legislative change is questionable. Is there any indication that stale signatures have played a significant part in adding ballot measures? And if so, wouldn't the current review process, as is apparently indicated in the original law, prevent misuse of the petition process?

The original legislation was passed 63 years ago. And, this section was amended 17 years ago. What was the driving reason to make this change now, in a general election year?

I agree with you that these changes are logical, but this change should not take effect until after the election in November.

-dex

a reply to: DexterRiley

For the record, I think that you misunderstood what I said, as I said the exact same thing as you did.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

No I understood what you were saying. I wasn't disagreeing with you at all.

I was just adding a few of my own opinions that I believe strengthened your conclusions.

I meant no disrespect, and in fact I thanked you for bringing the actual legal statute to our attention. Sorry for any confusion.

-dex