Looking Forward to the Vote
Apparently yesterday was the last day to register to vote. And here I thought I had procrastinated too long. Even though I have been back to my home town for almost two years, as far as the state was concerned, I was still back in East Lansing. So over a month ago, I went down to the Secretary of State office to correct my residency. The office led me to believe that the wait for a voter ID would only be a couple weeks. I got mine a few days ago—a few weeks late.
I take my right to vote very seriously. I am proud to say that I have not missed a vote since I became eligible in time for the 2000 presidential election. However, the 2006 midterm election will be the first election where I will be able to vote for representatives in the districts I call home. The reason is because when I lived up at MSU, Michigan lawrequired compelled me to register as a resident of those districts. So I am actually excited for this year’s.
I am providing an edited list of what my ballot is going to contain and who I am voting for (in bold). I’m not one of those people who won’t tell you who they voted for. Oh, this is going to come back to bite me in the ass, I just know it. I have also included this year’s proposals. Michigan allows her citizens to vote on constitutional amendments. Of special interest is Proposals 2, 4, and 5.
Proposal 2, or the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), would ban all affirmative action programs used by public institutions. This amendment is actually targeted towards universities such as Michigan State University and the University of Michigan who use race as a factor in their admission evaluations. It was actually a court case (Gratz v. Bollinger?) that involved the University of Michigan that touched this off.
Proposal 4 strengthens Michigan's current eminent domain clause. A few years ago, a local government authority somewhere in or around New England took over private residencies using their eminent domain powers. They intended to turn these private properties over to another private entity so that they could be developed for economic reasons (better tax revenue). The residents went to the United States Supreme Court arguing that they could not do this because eminent domain only allowed the government to seize property for public use which this did not. The Supreme Court disagreed. This touched off a lot of anger in the general public. Here in Michigan, we will decide if we want to strengthen our eminent domain clause to prevent something similar.
Proposal 5 sounds good but it also sounds bad. It would require additional spending on education and require that funding raises match the rate of inflation. That sounds nice and all but what happens when there are huge deficits in the state budget? This amendment would require that money be taken out of the general fund. That, to me, doesn’t strike me as smart if this state can’t be flexible in its spending priorities.
I take my right to vote very seriously. I am proud to say that I have not missed a vote since I became eligible in time for the 2000 presidential election. However, the 2006 midterm election will be the first election where I will be able to vote for representatives in the districts I call home. The reason is because when I lived up at MSU, Michigan law
I am providing an edited list of what my ballot is going to contain and who I am voting for (in bold). I’m not one of those people who won’t tell you who they voted for. Oh, this is going to come back to bite me in the ass, I just know it. I have also included this year’s proposals. Michigan allows her citizens to vote on constitutional amendments. Of special interest is Proposals 2, 4, and 5.
Proposal 2, or the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), would ban all affirmative action programs used by public institutions. This amendment is actually targeted towards universities such as Michigan State University and the University of Michigan who use race as a factor in their admission evaluations. It was actually a court case (Gratz v. Bollinger?) that involved the University of Michigan that touched this off.
Proposal 4 strengthens Michigan's current eminent domain clause. A few years ago, a local government authority somewhere in or around New England took over private residencies using their eminent domain powers. They intended to turn these private properties over to another private entity so that they could be developed for economic reasons (better tax revenue). The residents went to the United States Supreme Court arguing that they could not do this because eminent domain only allowed the government to seize property for public use which this did not. The Supreme Court disagreed. This touched off a lot of anger in the general public. Here in Michigan, we will decide if we want to strengthen our eminent domain clause to prevent something similar.
Proposal 5 sounds good but it also sounds bad. It would require additional spending on education and require that funding raises match the rate of inflation. That sounds nice and all but what happens when there are huge deficits in the state budget? This amendment would require that money be taken out of the general fund. That, to me, doesn’t strike me as smart if this state can’t be flexible in its spending priorities.
MY BALLOT
Governor
Dick DeVos (R)
Jennifer Granholm (D) incumbent
United States Senator
Michael Bouchard (R)
Debbie Stabenow (D) incumbent
State Senator, District 21
Ron Jelinek (R) incumbent
Valerie Janowski (D)
State Representative, District 78
Neal Nitz (R) incumbent
Judy Truesdale (D)
Michigan State University Board of Trustees (vote 2)
Dave Porteous (R) incumbent
Of the current list of the remaining candidates, I haven’t decided on the second trustee but it will probably be Dee Cook (R).
Proposal 1:
“A proposed constitutional amendment to require that money held in conservation and recreation funds can only be used for intended purposes.”
NO.
Proposal 2 Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI):
“A proposal to amend the state constitution to ban affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, or national origin for public employment, education, or contracting purposes.”
NO.
Proposal 3:
“A referendum on Public Act 160 of 2004—An act to allow the establishment of a hunting season for mourning doves.”
YES.
Proposal 4:
“A proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit government from taking private property by eminent domain for certain purposes.”
The proposed constitutional amendment would:
• Prohibit government from taking private property for transfer to another private individual or business for purposes of economic development or increasing tax revenue.
• Provide that if an individuals principal residence is taken by government for public use, the individual must be paid at least 125% of the property’s fair market value.
• Require the government that takes a private property to demonstrate that the taking is for public use, if taken to eliminate blight, require a higher standard of proof to demonstrate that the taking of private property is for a public use.
• Preserve the existing rights of property owners.
Should this proposal be adopted?
An emphatic HELL YES.
Proposal 5 Educational Funding Guarantee:
“A legislative initiative to establish mandatory school funding levels.”
Undecided.
*Ballot information taken from the fine folks at publius.org who provide non-partisan information for Michigan voters.
“A proposed constitutional amendment to require that money held in conservation and recreation funds can only be used for intended purposes.”
NO.
Proposal 2 Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI):
“A proposal to amend the state constitution to ban affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, or national origin for public employment, education, or contracting purposes.”
NO.
Proposal 3:
“A referendum on Public Act 160 of 2004—An act to allow the establishment of a hunting season for mourning doves.”
YES.
Proposal 4:
“A proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit government from taking private property by eminent domain for certain purposes.”
The proposed constitutional amendment would:
• Prohibit government from taking private property for transfer to another private individual or business for purposes of economic development or increasing tax revenue.
• Provide that if an individuals principal residence is taken by government for public use, the individual must be paid at least 125% of the property’s fair market value.
• Require the government that takes a private property to demonstrate that the taking is for public use, if taken to eliminate blight, require a higher standard of proof to demonstrate that the taking of private property is for a public use.
• Preserve the existing rights of property owners.
Should this proposal be adopted?
An emphatic HELL YES.
Proposal 5 Educational Funding Guarantee:
“A legislative initiative to establish mandatory school funding levels.”
Undecided.
*Ballot information taken from the fine folks at publius.org who provide non-partisan information for Michigan voters.
Comments
May I ask why you voted for the democrat for governor but republican for the rest of the candidates?
I know why I would vote for Granholm and not Scamway DeVos but I'm curious why you did.
Markus
It's not terribly unusual. I voted for Senator Levin. As for the rest of the candidates being Republican, I happen to be very satisfied with their service. I personally know Neal Nitz and Fred Upton is a level-headed Republican that is well liked in this district and has proven to be a dedicated Congressman.
Because I accept the Supreme Court's position that diversity is an interest. I also recognize that society is still racist and that minorities are still discriminated against. Hey, I don't like affirmative action either. In fact as an Asian, it actually works against me. But, I know that things are still stacked against us and I don't think that current system in which race is a component factor in admissions is so bad.