Tag Archive for Proposal 2

The Future of Michigan’s GOP

More Michigan Media Lies; Not Even Quality Fake News

Ingrid Jacques tells us that the Michigan GOP is “running scared” in an opinion posted yesterday at The Detroit News. “Republicans fear that the end of traditional district drawing by lawmakers is their death knell.” Michigan’s Republican Party leadership shares our dismal view of the baleful effect of Proposal 2 on our future.

Ms. Jacques goes on to quote Secretary of State elect Democrat Jocelyn Benson, who will be in charge of the Proposal 2 redistricting commission:

“I have a deep background in redistricting law and in particular citizen-led redistricting,” Benson told me in an interview last month. “I do believe that it is the most impactful way that you can remove the conflict of interest that currently exists in districting, where people are drawing their own districts and preserving their own power.”

Ms. Jacques concludes her opinion, however, with soothing ‘independent’ reports from Wayne State Law Professor Robert A. Sedler saying there’s no doubt this will benefit Democrats, but that’s just because the contorted districts Republicans have drawn will no longer exist; and Eric W. Lupher of the Citizens Research Council imagining the GOP will keep control of at least one legislative chamber in the coming decade.

Republicans have nothing to fear. It is another tin foil hat conspiracy beloved of Trump supporters.

Feeling some reassurance?  You shouldn’t.

You Betcha! (17)Nuh Uh.(1)

In The Beginning

The very first time Michigan experienced 'Gerrymandering'

There was Chaos.

The 1961 Michigan Con-Con created a new way of apportioning districts.

Though it had not done away with geographical consideration that had existed for most of the 20th century to that point, it created the commission under which Four Republicans, and Four Democrats, and Four (if any 3rd party received 25% of the vote) 3rd party commissioners.  And as expected, the first commission was deadlocked.

The apportionment plan went before the Michigan Supreme Court, and the Republican plan was ruled as being as close to the apportionment rules as either plans, and ordered to be in effect.  In the meantime, the US Supreme Court applied a 1962 case (Baker V. Carr) which opined the authority over apportionment matters to Reynolds v. Simms, establishing the ‘one person, one vote’ apportionment standard.

This changed everything.

You Betcha! (13)Nuh Uh.(0)

Proposal 2 Funders

Who are the largest donors of the campaign to screw up Michigan's election districts?

The ‘grass roots’ effort to end gerrymandering in Michigan is a scam.

There was an effort by progressive liberals, to rig the game in their favor using the California model as a template.  Gullible voters could give them the win, but the funding for the proposal’s passage leaves us with more questions as to what they really want to do.

Out of state money is pressing hard to destroy accountability, but fighting the yes-vote is Michigan only Money.  MCFN notes the Tony Daunt comments:

Out-of-state special interests are trying to buy Michigan’s constitution, but our constitution is not for sale,” said Tony Daunt, spokesman for opposition group Protect My Vote, in a press release. “Hypocrite is too kind a description for the liars behind this sham proposal, and voters who’ve been duped by their scam have every right to be outraged.”

Over 80% of the funding for Prop 2 passage efforts comes from elsewhere.

Enjoy the video and pass along.

You Betcha! (12)Nuh Uh.(0)

Dangerous

Proposal 2 backers don't want you to participate in the political process.

Proposal 2 is dangerous to the way in which we engage our political system.

‘Voters Not Politicians’ are a fraudulent front for outside interests.  While pretending to solve gerrymandering, it actually makes it worse, adds cost to state government,  and in the process prevents participation in the process of voting and campaign efforts.

It is bad for ALL parties though it is primarily being pushed by progressive interests from out of state.

Please share the video series broadly so that we can avoid the disaster that is proposal 2.

You Betcha! (13)Nuh Uh.(0)

Exclusionary

Another compelling reason to leave Michigan's constitution intact.

Michigan’s Proposal 2 of 2018 is purposefully exclusionary.

Writers of proposal 2 do not want anyone with political knowledge to directly participate in the process of designing political districts.  Perhaps it makes it easier to control the process of those doing it?

Experience is apparently a bad thing.

It leaves me wondering a little.  If a person who had no concept of how plumbing worked was to design your home’s piping scheme, how happy might you be with the result when the water is finally turned on?

Please share with all your skeptical friends, instructing them to pass along as well.

You Betcha! (18)Nuh Uh.(3)

Mind Readers

Assuming Proposal 2 were to pass?

What prevents a person from declaring a political affiliation that is not truly what they are?  Are there mind readers employed by law enforcement agencies who can sort it out?

Enjoy and share this video with all of those whom you think might be stupid enough to think Prop 2 is a good idea.  Maybe share with those who might also find it entertaining.

Ciao

You Betcha! (17)Nuh Uh.(0)

Freedom Fund Silent On MCRI Victory

Why is such an influential 'conservative' group so silent about such a civil rights victory?

cone-silenceA funny thing happened on the way to yesterday’s US Supreme Court victory for Michigan.

Greg McNeilly, and the DeVos funded Freedom fund were unusually quiet.  The all-things-go except true equality “Freedom Fund” was silent on the issue, offering no opinion, no support, or any insight where it stands with regard to racial preferences.  Apparently, this influential, well financed, political advocacy group had no qualms about the state constitution being squashed by activist judges.

The question if of whether we should be surprised was answered years ago.  In 2003, Greg McNeilly, who was the executive director under Michigan Republican party chair Betsy DeVos,  made it clear that voters should not be in charge of repairing the mistaken race based decision making process.

You Betcha! (17)Nuh Uh.(0)

Timing Is Everything

The overturning of the Sixth Circuit Court may have positive impact on other Michigan imperatives.

Supreme_Court_US_2009The US Supreme Court decision today was probably an easy one.

In a 6-2 ruling. (see KG’s article for a link) the court upheld the ban enacted by Michigan voters in 2006; Proposal 2, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.  Race shall NOT be used in admission policies in our colleges and public institutions, or for purposes of employment or contracting through government. From the Detroit News

The ruling championed the right of the voters to set policy in writing their own state constitutions.

“Perhaps, when enacting policies as an exercise of democratic self-government, voters will determine that race-based preferences should be adopted. The constitutional validity of some of those choices regarding racial preferences is not at issue here,” Kennedy wrote. The decision here “is simply that the courts may not disempower the voters from choosing which path to follow.”

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, who appealed the appeals court ruling, hailed the justices decision.

That was a free promo, Bill. Lets start working on the next battle shall we? – JG

There is no doubt Michigan’s Attorney General carried this one across the finish line, but the argument was simple on a number of levels.

You Betcha! (8)Nuh Uh.(0)

Read it and weep BAMN (along with every other race-hustler and their catspaws)!

“Deliberative debate on sensitive issues such as racial preferences all too often may shade into rancor. But that does not justify removing certain court-determined issues from the voters’ reach.

Democracy does not presume that some subjects are either too divisive or too profound for public debate.The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.
Submitted w/o any further comment.
You Betcha! (3)Nuh Uh.(0)